More economic pain whoever wins 2015 general election

[Danny_Boy]

No, surprise there then. Do you think he could be lying?

 

In all honesty he could be I don't know either of them well enough to vouch for their word. I also suppose it's in the lenders best interests to try and boost confidence in the market. We shall see I suppose.

[Rupert_Baehr]

However....if my thinking that a billion pounds is a thousand million, then pulling money from the DFID budget could clear our deficit of £70 billion in one year and still leave £1.95 billion to distribute overseas.

 

---------- Post added 26-06-2013 at 10:25 ----------

 

We don't need to borrow Truman, just redistribute.

 

Clear our deficit? What is that supposed to mean?

 

The deficit is the gap between income and expenditure. It's not the same as the debt which the country owes.

 

The forecast deficit for 2013 is 'only' £89bn, so if you could take that much from the DFID budget you could eliminate it this year, but you'd probably have to find about the same amount next year, too.

 

Perhaps the DFIC budget should be reduced dramatically until the country is out of a hole (after all, 'charity begins at home') but if you stop sending all those countries money, are you likely to see a massive increase in the number of their countrymen they send to you?

[truman]

Clear our deficit? What is that supposed to mean?

 

The deficit is the gap between income and expenditure. It's not the same as the debt which the country owes.

 

The forecast deficit for 2013 is 'only' £89bn, so if you could take that much from the DFID budget you could eliminate it this year, but you'd probably have to find about the same amount next year, too.

 

Perhaps the DFIC budget should be reduced dramatically until the country is out of a hole (after all, 'charity begins at home') but if you stop sending all those countries money, are you likely to see a massive increase in the number of their countrymen they send to you?

 

Hence my post #14....

[Titanic99]

for god sake will you shut up about this. it was all DEBT!

 

I'm sorry fellow poster but if you think that then you really shouldn't be contributing to this thread.

 

I will try to make it simple for you.

 

Think how much you were worth in 1997 and how much now, if you are one of the majority that has seen this increase considerably then why shouldn't we be taxing those people instead of hammering those that have nothing.

 

It isn't rocket science and it would be whole lot fairer than hat all the major parties are suggesting now.

[alchresearch]

In light of this Spending Review and Labour agreeing with the plans:

 

Labour has said it will stick to the plans if it wins the 2015 election.

 

I have a question for any Labour supporters. Its not a dig, I just want to get an insight from a voting member of the public and not the biased media or a party's spin.

 

For the past three years Labour have been in denial about the cuts, and now they're finally coming round to the idea that the Tories plans have been about right.

 

What do you feel about that? Have they let you down? Have they wasted three years? Do you think it's held them back in some way?

[WeX]

I'm sorry fellow poster but if you think that then you really shouldn't be contributing to this thread.

 

I will try to make it simple for you.

 

Think how much you were worth in 1997 and how much now, if you are one of the majority that has seen this increase considerably then why shouldn't we be taxing those people instead of hammering those that have nothing.

 

It isn't rocket science and it would be whole lot fairer than hat all the major parties are suggesting now.

 

you are saying exactly the same as you have done before and each time I and others have tried to explain to you that debt does not mean you are worth that amount. you took the value of peoples houses as net value which was completely wrong.

[EDWOOD]

Just seen that Osborne wants jobseekers to sign on every week now instead of fortnightly.

 

How are the job centres going to cope with a doubling of signing-on with the same amount of staff?

[WeX]

Just seen that Osborne wants jobseekers to sign on every week now instead of fortnightly.

 

How are the job centres going to cope with a doubling of signing-on with the same amount of staff?

 

maybe they can streamline the process. maybe they could use an online system of signing on or computer terminals in the job centres. however the weekly sing on has been going on for some time and Osborne doesn't decide this, this is IDC's department.

 

I don't see why it should be a problem if they can cope with the increase in numbers.

[Titanic99]

you are saying exactly the same as you have done before and each time I and others have tried to explain to you that debt does not mean you are worth that amount. you took the value of peoples houses as net value which was completely wrong.

 

I'm not being funny but you are talking absolute nonsense.

 

For example let's take Council Houses to demonstrate this.

 

In 1997 they were probably worth around a third/quarter of what they are now, so every time one is sold the treasury or Council(not sure who has the funds now) are receiving considerably more than in 1997.

 

Then moving on to home owners, those people owning in 1997 and still owning now are worth considerably more.

 

The other example is those inheriting wealth, a recent family bereavement left us with a significant inheritance which has been generated by us doing very little.

 

Why shouldn't these people be targeted for sorting the deficit/debt out as opposed to those that gained nothing under Labour.

 

---------- Post added 26-06-2013 at 14:57 ----------

 

maybe they can streamline the process. maybe they could use an online system of signing on or computer terminals in the job centres. however the weekly sing on has been going on for some time and Osborne doesn't decide this, this is IDC's department.

 

I don't see why it should be a problem if they can cope with the increase in numbers.

 

Maybe we could create jobs so they don't have to sign on!

[Dingus]

Clear our deficit? What is that supposed to mean?

 

The deficit is the gap between income and expenditure. It's not the same as the debt which the country owes.

 

The forecast deficit for 2013 is 'only' £89bn, so if you could take that much from the DFID budget you could eliminate it this year, but you'd probably have to find about the same amount next year, too.

 

Perhaps the DFIC budget should be reduced dramatically until the country is out of a hole (after all, 'charity begins at home') but if you stop sending all those countries money, are you likely to see a massive increase in the number of their countrymen they send to you?

 

Just think. If the last lot hadn't borrowed so much and run up such a massive debt, we wouldn't need to pay £30billion in interest repayments on that debt and would hardly have a deficit at all. But they did and so we have.