Liberal Media Begin To attack Liberals.

[Guest sibon]

Today's papers make interesting reading. Both The Independent and The Observer are carrying pretty heavyweight articles denouncing George Osbourne's intention to cut and cut deep on Tuesday.

 

I've picked this to link to, by Will Hutton, a man who should be taken seriously, even if you don't agree with him. There are a number of other articles along the same lines in both papers.

 

All the articles that I've read seem to ask the same question. "What purpose do the Lib-Dems actually serve?" Several suggest that this could be a serious blow to their electoral credibility, which could put them back to the fringes of UK politics.

 

The worms are turning, in my opinion. What do you think?

[Rupert_Baehr]

I liked the comment in Mr Hutton's article that: "The former Labour government had already committed to a greater and faster reduction in the budget deficit than any British government in modern times."

 

Could that be because said former Labour government saddled the country with the greatest and fastest-growing amount of debt of all time? (Let alone modern times.) - Indeed, had Labour been re-elected, then by the end of the current term of government that Labour government would have borrowed more money than the aggregate borrowed by all Kings and Governments since Julius Caesar?

 

I gather from Mr Hutton's article that the present government intends to (nearly) eliminate the budget deficit within 5 years.

 

Labour intended to halve it.

 

A balanced budget is a laudable goal, but 5 years seems like a very short time frame to set in which to achieve that goal.

 

Mr Hutton's article ended with the comment that: "Millions of British will pay a higher price – the needless squandering of their lives."

 

That could happen. And perhaps millions more will vote with their feet.

[Dogs Of War]

That could happen. And perhaps millions more will vote with their feet.

 

which is exactly what we did , by removing the failing , mismanaging Labour government which got us into this mess with their policy of spending what we didnt have and constant borrowing.

[Guest sibon]

which is exactly what we did , by removing the failing , mismanaging Labour government which got us into this mess with their policy of spending what we didnt have and constant borrowing.

 

I take it that you read Mr Hutton's article in detail then.

 

Thanks for your input.

[Guest sibon]

 

Mr Hutton's article ended with the comment that: "Millions of British will pay a higher price – the needless squandering of their lives."

 

That could happen. And perhaps millions more will vote with their feet.

 

 

One of the risks that such an approach brings is a talent drain in the Public Services.

 

I do quite a lot of recruiting as part of my job. I'm in no doubt at all, that the quality of applicants for jobs in my department is on the rise. I think that this as a result of better pay and conditions. That could easily be reversed.

[Vague_Boy]

I liked the comment in Mr Hutton's article that: "The former Labour government had already committed to a greater and faster reduction in the budget deficit than any British government in modern times."

 

Can anyone post a link to a detailed breakdown of what these cuts would have been?

 

Without that, their (pre-election) claims are just so much empty political rhetoric.

[Guest sibon]

Can anyone post a link to a detailed breakdown of what these cuts would have been?

 

Without that, their (pre-election) claims are just so much empty political rhetoric.

 

They were in the proper budget. No rhetoric, they were very real.

 

Mr Osbourne, on the other hand, is about to enter financial la-la land. Imagine being instructed to clear your mortgage in the next five years, whether you need to or not. That is the sort of thing that he is going to do to the country.

 

The only consolation for me, is that the repercussions from this should rid the country of the Tories for the rest of my lifetime.

[I1L2T3]

Can anyone post a link to a detailed breakdown of what these cuts would have been?

 

Without that, their (pre-election) claims are just so much empty political rhetoric.

 

Straw man argument. The only way we found out what the conservatives wanted to do was by seeing them form a government. No party committed to exactly what the cuts would be before the election, the conservatives included.

[I1L2T3]

They were in the proper budget. No rhetoric, they were very real.

 

Mr Osbourne, on the other hand, is about to enter financial la-la land. Imagine being instructed to clear your mortgage in the next five years, whether you need to or not. That is the sort of thing that he is going to do to the country.

 

The only consolation for me, is that the repercussions from this should rid the country of the Tories for the rest of my lifetime.

 

The sad thing is that the Libs may not be performing a valuable role in opposing these cuts. They're complicit.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Can anyone post a link to a detailed breakdown of what these cuts would have been?

 

Without that, their (pre-election) claims are just so much empty political rhetoric.

 

If you search one of the web pages of the online newspapers you should be able to get some figures. AFAIR, Darling was promising 'to reduce the budget deficit by 50% within the life of [this] Parliament.'

 

If that was a linear reduction (though given that he stated that his plans for reductions in public spending would be less in the first year to allow the economy to recover it would not have been a linear reduction,) then Labour planned find an additional sum of something like £20 Billion [or more] per year (the predicted budget deficit was about £165 billion, so 50% would have required an annual reduction of £16.5 billion, but there's the (not-so) small matter of the interest due on the existing amount owed and the interest due on all the borrowing during the life of the Parliament.)

 

Finding £20 Billion extra each year for deficit reduction would've been fairly impressive; it may not be so far wide of the mark to suggest that Labour had planned to do more to reduce the deficit than had any previous government - particularly as Labour dug a deeper hole than did any previous government.

 

(This article is a few months old, but IMO it's still worth looking at.)