Show your opposition to the cuts - demonstrate at the Tory Party Conference

[alchresearch]

Having a look at that leaked document listing the departments and quangos to be abolished it only reinforces my faith in this government.

 

I mean, why have UK Sport and Sport England? Theatres Trust? Why should they get any help? Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites? Please!

 

By all means have advisory bodies, but have them made up of experts of the general public (they should get a load from the armchair know-alls on here!) working voluntarily.

[Mecky]

The time for demonstrations has passed

[Paul2412]

Did you suggest all that to the last government. They were in power for 13 years you know. If they had raised that much and saved that much they wouldn't have handed over a £1 trillion (£1,000,000,000,000) of government debt to the incoming government, who wouldn't then be having to clear up Labour's mess.

 

Don't mention that! Remember, Labour were the good guys for saying yes to everything.

 

Plus, if people like the original poster thought about things rationally then what would the Sky News HD chopper do on a Sunday afternoon?

[hitch_1980]

Just been reading the report and im amazed at the amount of "quango groups" that have similar names......

[Extrabold]

The public finances were in better shape (i.e. less debt) in 2008 than they were in 1997. Labour failed to regulate the banking industry and I see nothing in the coalition either to make me think that they will either, as much as I quite like Vince Cable.

 

Indeed the public finances were in a mess in 1997 and Labour was elected on a manifesto of fiscal prudence, and proceeded with 2 years of austerity. Labour won back a reputation they had lost for being sound on the public finances.

 

Fast forward to 2010, and the deficit is breathtaking compared to that in 1997. And Labour are pretending that it is all fine, and nothing to do with them.

 

Had Gordon Brown stuck to his golden rule, he would have been paying debt off in 2008, and would have had much more room to respond to the credit crunch with fiscal stimulus without risking a soveriegn debt crisis, or racking up huge debt interest burdens that will lead to permanently worse public services.

 

Anybody remember the "golden rule"? Remember "prudence"? Never has a hard-won reputation for soundness on the economy been thrown away so willingly. All in an attempt to blame the coalition for the consequences of the deficit.

[Wildcat]

Indeed the public finances were in a mess in 1997 and Labour was elected on a manifesto of fiscal prudence, and proceeded with 2 years of austerity. Labour won back a reputation they had lost for being sound on the public finances.

 

Fast forward to 2010, and the deficit is breathtaking compared to that in 1997. And Labour are pretending that it is all fine, and nothing to do with them.

 

Had Gordon Brown stuck to his golden rule, he would have been paying debt off in 2008, and would have had much more room to respond to the credit crunch with fiscal stimulus without risking a soveriegn debt crisis, or racking up huge debt interest burdens that will lead to permanently worse public services.

 

Anybody remember the "golden rule"? Remember "prudence"? Never has a hard-won reputation for soundness on the economy been thrown away so willingly. All in an attempt to blame the coalition for the consequences of the deficit.

 

Breaking his 40% rule was the right thing to do, though. We couldn't let Northern Rock fail.

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2211115/northern-rock-breaks

 

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Gordon, it just seems such a shame so many people miss the point and criticise him for the wrong things.

 

Indeed it is Cameron's inconsistency and lack of understanding on the issue that was the real lesson to be learned.

 

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/02/where-are-we-with-northern-rock/

[Extrabold]

Breaking his 40% rule was the right thing to do, though. We couldn't let Northern Rock fail.

 

Yes I agree there. At least we had to protect deposits, and nationalisation was the most cost-effective way of doing that.

 

What wasn't clear at the time was that this was the top of the economic cycle, and the government was still borrowing as if it were at the bottom. So the "golden rule" was not just broken but out of sight. They were warned about this at the time by that Vince Cable fellow.

 

Once the crunch hit they were right to borrow to maintain spending. Making the private and the public sector pain happen at different times means a smaller downturn overall. But there is a price to be paid in debt interest, higher the longer the public sector pain is put off.

[Vague_Boy]

Keep taking the tablets.

 

Splendid rebuttal that. I particularly like your extensive use of citations and links to back up your case.

[Vague_Boy]

Breaking his 40% rule was the right thing to do, though. We couldn't let Northern Rock fail.

 

Gordon was breaking his 40% rule from day one, using slight of hand tricks like PFI and arbitrarily putting back the start of the economic cycle by 2 years.

 

 

Hiding substantial liabilities off the government balance sheet has enabled it to circumvent Gordon Brown's much-lauded "Golden Rule" and "Sustainable Investment Rule". Political expediency appears to have won out over the need to plan prudently for the country's future.

 

The government must recognise the true scale of public debt and bring some much-needed transparency on to the books before the public finances spiral even further out of control.

 

LINK

 

And why should Northern Rock have been saved? Have you not heard of moral hazard?

[Vague_Boy]

Indeed the public finances were in a mess in 1997 and Labour was elected on a manifesto of fiscal prudence, and proceeded with 2 years of austerity.

 

Can you provide links to back up these claims? Your account certainly seems to run contrary to my own memories of that era.