If you put 500,000 public sector wage earners onto the dole, that's going to do a fair job of inhibiting growth as well. This whole 'private sector good, public sector bad' ethos is hugely simplistic, since the two exist in what you could properly describe as a mutually symbiotic relationship. All that money the government was spending had to be going somewhere and an awful lot of it was going to the private sector, either immediately or indirectly. That business led to profit, which was taxed and those taxes were use dot pay public sector worker's wages. The system is cyclical and you can't knock one half of it off kilter without the other half getting in trouble too.

As has been pointed out, we don't have to increase taxes. But it'd help a lot if we actually collected all the taxes that are levied, rather than just the low hanging fruit. It would also help a lot of the private sector offered the kind of value to the public sector it always claims it is capable of, rather than attempting to rip off the public purse at nearly every turn.

Cutting government expenditure is definitely a requirement and the degree of cutting is a matter for debate that only time will reveal the truth of, but the bald fact is the public finances are in such a shoddy state not primarily because of the profligacy of the government but because of the absolute lunatic profligacy of the private sector banking industry, operating under the apparent (and it turns out, accurate) maxim that however stupid and reckless they were, the government would bail them out. If it wasn't for bailing out the banks, the cuts required would be unarguably much less, if required at all.

We may well have had a 'decade of overspending' but if you add up all the overspending over that decade, it adds up to significantly less than the public money the banks managed to burn through in less than a year. Labour did spend more than they earned and were stupid to do so, but we're in this mess because of the private sector, not the public sector.

Jon

Probably because they're not going to impact on you overly? What's fair enough about not cutting the winter fuel allowance to those that don't need it? Frickin' millionaires still get it FFS. All the cuts seem to be cobbled together and not well thought out, on top of that the markets say that there are indications that the current policies may be leading us into a double dip recession. Fair enough my arse. They've been written up in 10 minutes by a bunch of halfwits.

As Jon says, how on earth do you think 500,000 public sector workers losing their jobs is going to help?

'Oh the private sector will come in...'. I'm sorry, where, with what, when? Empty statements by the Government again.


The main way to encourage people into work is to offer secure jobs. If you had a kid but the only jobs you were offered were ones that could be ended with, what 1 or 2 weeks notice, and then it took at least another 6 weeks to sort out benefits again what would you do for your family? In the meantime you'd be getting into debt while waiting for the system to kick in again.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the benefits limit that's being brought in. I also believe that you shouldn't get child benefit for more than 2 children not that that will ever happen. However, a functional well working benefits system coupled with job security is the only true way to encourage people that they're not putting their family at risk.

This country is so apathetic and maliable it's untrue and we're being led by a bunch of fools who don't see beyond the next headline.

+1

I can't help wondering just how many LibDems are trying to ride out the storm, and how long it will be before the ones with an intact conscience start to rebel against this unholy alliance. They must know that the party will get slaughtered in future elections, so some of them have to be thinking about distancing themselves, and the party, from the more unpopular decisions in an effort to mitigate the damage.

True but I would have preferred higher capital gains taxes as well. That would have raise more money from those that had benefited from the bubbles that had been created.

The majority did not vote for cuts. The Tories got barely 36% hardly a majority in favour of tax cuts. While all parties wanted to cut the deficit Labours plan was the best of all. The Liberals have been duped into a bad deal. I have been critical of Labours deficits in the last few years but had it not been for the Global Financial Crisis there would have been another Labour victory only the personality of Gordon Brown was a liability. The crisis made Gordon look foolish when his claims of ending Boom and Bust were rebroadcast. The IMF are a bunch of monetarists and quite frankly are out of their depth. If their policies we so good wouldn't our economy be booming by now? Japan. Also in 2007 before the crisis hit Cameron pledged to stick to Labours spending plans.

May you should read this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opini ... bEIPCOrIJw



Capital spending has been slashed. Social Housing capital spending by more than 50%. Raising taxes in isolation would slow growth, but it does depend on the circumstances. If they raised taxes but actually spent that money rather than used it for reducing the deficit then its effects would be minimal. Look at scandinavia, higher taxes but better services. The standards of living in Sweden are higher than here. If the net increase is for tax increases then yes it would slow the economy. But what if they used it to have lots of new government employment schemes to create jobs? The impact would be positive. The same can be said for spending cuts in that it will lower growth.


Actually the children will be left with a substantially smaller economy and the same liabilities. Ireland have crushed their economy and their deficit is no better after five emergency budgets. I expect decades of low growth and stagnation if we carry on this path. It is only good for those that are rich enough to get through this. Everyone else had better watch out.


And how independent are the BBC? They still get their funds from the tax man, just because it supposedly comes from a hypothecated tax makes no difference. If they want real independence then the funds should be fixed and committed for a longer period, in a 7 year deal. As for road fund licence make it dirt cheap just enough to cover admin costs and then the numbers of unregistered cars would fall considerably. Even free for cars over 10 years old. Increase fuel duty to cover the costs of roads that way.

While I do think that the tax ad benefits system needs to be simplified so that mere mortals have some reasonably chance of understanding them these cuts are being driven as much by ideology as whatever fig leaf of economics Osborn is trying to use.

Why else would the government be making several thousand tax inspectors/collectors redundant at a time when the country needs all the tax revenue it can pull in? Simple answer - because tax inspectors pull in the most tax from higher rate tax payers otherwise known as the people the Tories represent. And along with that we are looking at a massive give away of public services to the private sector (because that's always gone swimmingly and delivered best value to the public purse, <cough> PFI <cough>)

Like several others round here I voted for the Lib Dems but I'm frankly appalled by the depths they've stooped to just to have a chance of power. They are finished as a political party, at least for the next several elections.

I could not agree more. I voted for them as well. I do think that the party could be in trouble over the next couple of years. With the planned gerrymandering of seats over this parliament the Tories are trying to embed themselves a permanent majority. AV plus will not get through, unless by a miracle, so the liberals will probably lose a fair number of their new MPs next time around.

I do not think that private management is always better than state management. I am for efficiency no matter who does it. The same applies to privatisation's. As long as it brings improvements then go ahead. Longer term these cuts will take us as a nation closer to bankruptcy which is the complete opposite of where they say they are heading. If ireland default look at to see the government panic.

Who thinks there should be an x404 coup and we run the country?

There's a long established movement to get Heather into No. 10.....

Yes, Heather for PM!

No! Finally make us a Republic again and make her President!

I still think we need a Queen just incase Heather gets power crazy.

I'm flattered.

The best government is supposed to be a benign dictatorship, isn't it?

They did, however, get the most seats in Parliament. That's how our system works.



That's debatable.



It was the only deal in town, and Clegg always said he would work with the largest party - whoever that was.



Again, debatable.



Equally Japan has been attempting fiscal stimuli throughout the 90s and 2000s, with limited success. And hey, guess what, they owe ridiculous amounts of money too. In fact there are worries that Japan will struggle to pay its debts with an ageing population and nothing to drive growth.



And then a recession happened....andIn case you didn't know, Tony Blair used Tory spending plans until 2000 too.



Thanks but no thanks, not only are the Americans also cutting spending, but they have the world's major reserve currency (which helps prop up the dollar) and have much deeper pockets than we do. They might be able to afford to stave off cuts, we can't.



There is very little difference in standard of living between Scandinavia and the UK. The difference in HDI value between Sweden and the UK is a mere 0.016. Sweden also didn't have either the expense of World War II, nor the expense of rebuilding afterwards. Creating public sector non-jobs isn't the answer and creates a false impression of the economy, it was also a tactic used by Labour to artificially lower unemployment figures. As for Norway - it has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, thanks to North Sea oil, which pays for its pension liabilities.



Poppycock. There is no evidence of this, and the latest growth figures actually contradict this. The UK economy can not, in any way, be compared to Ireland. The UK economy is much, much larger than that of Ireland, is far more diverse and contains many more economic actors, not to mention our borrowing costs are vastly lower.



Er, except HMRC doesn't collect or distribute the licence fee, the BBC does!

That phrase is far too underused.