The politicians of today are an insult to you and me

[TJC1]

That Stalin was nice fellow though.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 00:48 ----------

 

Oh and Pol pot. He was lovely. And all the national socialists. And the DDR bloke he was lovely.

 

Stalin and pol pot were communists. Dictators. I dont think you can compare to jeremy corbyn:hihi:

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 00:57 ----------

 

Because you arent neutral in anything you say. It comes from a misguided left wing ideology.

If I said I was neutral would you accept that? I suspect not. I don't claim to be neutral. You do.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 00:52 ----------

 

 

But they aren't genuinely helping them. They are using them to their own ends. There are no socialist states where they poor are better off than the 'poor' under britains capitalist system.

 

You think pol pot and stalin are lefties. Lol

I dont have a problem with left and right, just thick ignorant people.

[RonJeremy]

Stalin and pol pot were communists. Dictators. I dont think you can compare to jeremy corbyn:hihi:

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 00:57 ----------

 

 

You think pol pot and stalin are lefties. Lol

I dont have a problem with left and right, just thick ignorant people.

 

I can't get a cigarette paper between socialists and communists. They're both lefties.

[Eric Arthur]

And the rest of world. How do we account for that?

That is the Great Big Lie that people should educate themselves on before they repeat it.

 

We don't need to account for it because it didn't happen to the rest of the world. It happened in the USA and Europe. A few other countries had a bit of a ripple effect but not a crisis.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 07:14 ----------

 

Is Channel 4 news Fact check left wing? It certainly isn't part of the unholy alliance of the Sun/ Mail /Express....What makes you think Channel 4 news is left wing?

 

How about Bloomberg? The picture says it all.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-06/2015-global-economic-outlook-better-than-2014-but-not-by-much

[unbeliever]

Kind of. We know the government is cutting spending. But whats interesting is spending has been going up steadily year on year.

However spending as a percentage of gdp is decreasing year on year.

 

Spending is increasing but not at a rate it should. Bringing down the deficit is a priority for this government. If they get it right it might work.

What needs to happen post 2020 is spending.

 

That's not unreasonable. As I say I think you'll see some spending increases. But there's also a large debt mountain that we should start to tackle.

 

You say "we know that the government is cutting spending". How do you know that? How is it consistent with the spending totals?

There have been a lot of misleading stories in the media. A lot of abuse of the word "cut". It has somehow become legitimate for people to talk about something as a cut because it's rising slower than GDP growth, even if it's rising faster than costs. That's quite dishonest and has lead a lot of people (janie48 for a start) to genuinely believe that there has been a cash cut in government spending, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

It is surely unsustainable to increase public spending as a percentage of GDP every year. Eventually you'd hit 100%. Besides, surely what matters if you want to improve services is that spending should rise faster than costs. As I say we have had increases even accounting for inflation.

 

What about when GDP goes down? You surely don't want to see a cash cut, or even a cut after inflation, in public spending during a recession?

GDP goes down sometimes even if the country is well run. Not to the extent we saw in the late 00's, but still it happens. A couple of quarters of negative growth is sometimes unavoidable. For example if a major trading partner goes into heavy recession, there's not much one can do.

Under the plans laid out by the current government, you'd still see increases in public spending after inflation during that period. You'd see the state borrowing to keep spending rising modestly after inflation. This would be sustainable because during a boom you pay down the debt and you can therefore afford to borrow during a recession.

Isn't this a more reasonable approach than going for rapid public spending growth during a boom and then having to take it back during a recession?

The stability, I would have thought, from the current approach is far better for the long term performance and quality of the public services than the alternative.

 

Eventually I suppose we'll reach a point where government spending as a fraction of GDP is roughy constant if you measure it over long enough periods. There's a legitimate debate to be had about what that fraction should be. Too high and you risk slowing GDP growth and actually doing more harm than good in the long term. Too low, and people are suffering needlessly because the public services are not as good as we can afford to make them.

 

This is in my opinion where the true debate within UK politics belongs. It's what people like you and me should really be arguing about. Instead of having to correct each other on the truth of what is actually happening, because it's been spun so much by politicians and their ilk that it's genuinely hard to know what's really going on.

Edited August 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[TJC1]

That's not unreasonable. As I say I think you'll see some spending increases. But there's also a large debt mountain that we should start to tackle.

 

You say "we know that the government is cutting spending". How do you know that? How is it consistent with the spending totals?

There have been a lot of misleading stories in the media. A lot of abuse of the word "cut". It has somehow become legitimate for people to talk about something as a cut because it's rising slower than GDP growth, even if it's rising faster than costs. That's quite dishonest and has lead a lot of people (janie48 for a start) to genuinely believe that there has been a cash cut in government spending, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

It is surely unsustainable to increase public spending as a percentage of GDP every year. Eventually you'd hit 100%. Besides, surely what matters if you want to improve services is that spending should rise faster than costs. As I say we have had increases even accounting for inflation.

 

What about when GDP goes down? You surely don't want to see a cash cut, or even a cut after inflation, in public spending during a recession?

GDP goes down sometimes even if the country is well run. Not to the extent we saw in the late 00's, but still it happens. A couple of quarters of negative growth is sometimes unavoidable. For example if a major trading partner goes into heavy recession, there's not much one can do.

Under the plans laid out by the current government, you'd still see increases in public spending after inflation during that period. You'd see the state borrowing to keep spending rising modestly after inflation. This would be sustainable because during a boom you pay down the debt and you can therefore afford to borrow during a recession.

Isn't this a more reasonable approach than going for rapid public spending growth during a boom and then having to take it back during a recession?

The stability, I would have thought, from the current approach is far better for the long term performance and quality of the public services than the alternative.

 

Eventually I suppose we'll reach a point where government spending as a fraction of GDP is roughy constant if you measure it over long enough periods. There's a legitimate debate to be had about what that fraction should be. Too high and you risk slowing GDP growth and actually doing more harm than good in the long term. Too low, and people are suffering needlessly because the public services are not as good as we can afford to make them.

 

This is in my opinion where the true debate within UK politics belongs. It's what people like you and me should really be arguing about. Instead of having to correct each other on the truth of what is actually happening, because it's been spun so much by politicians and their ilk that it's genuinely hard to know what's really going on.

 

This proposed 50% cut in whitehall spending. You think it was 50% higher than it really should be?

The cuts on welfare? 10% of that budget.

300 million from sheffield council?

All this against stagnant wage rises.

 

Im not entrely in the same camp. Take gdp and inflation out of the equatiom. A cut is a cut. We have less than before.

 

It's going to bring down the deficit. Public borrowing too. In theory.

 

However we have to spend at some point. And osborne has to hit his targets. Not half like he did last term which was a failure imho.

[unbeliever]

This proposed 50% cut in whitehall spending. You think it was 50% higher than it really should be?

The cuts on welfare? 10% of that budget.

300 million from sheffield council?

All this against stagnant wage rises.

 

Im not entrely in the same camp. Take gdp and inflation out of the equatiom. A cut is a cut. We have less than before.

 

It's going to bring down the deficit. Public borrowing too. In theory.

 

However we have to spend at some point. And osborne has to hit his targets. Not half like he did last term which was a failure imho.

 

As I know first hand the public sector can get horribly bloated. There are a huge number of people who just get in the way. What was the whitehall budget before the cut and what was it afterwards? Is that a cut to the total budget or a subset of it?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if welfare spending fell as employment has risen, but still what was it before and afterwards?

Same for the 300 million for Sheffield council. Is it relative to before, to what it would have been if it were gdp linked, to what they asked for? What was the budget before the cut and what was it afterwards?

 

I'm not questioning your honesty, but these are important questions. Without an explanation of what the "cut" is relative to, it deserves treating with great scepticism.

Edited August 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[TJC1]

The other thing is unemployment is slowly rising. Salary increases down a few points.

Were hitting a plateau. Not a good sign for this governments plans.

 

This new living wage nonsense better work as planned, because if private doesnt pick up the slack as projected, more setbacks on the way.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 12:05 ----------

 

What was the whitehall budget before the cut and what was it afterwards? Is that a cut to the total budget or a subset of it?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if welfare spending fell as employment has risen, but still what was it before and afterwards?

Same for the 300 million for Sheffield council. Is it relative to before, to what it would have been if it were gdp linked, to what they asked for? What was the budget before the cut and what was it afterwards.

 

I'm not questioning your honesty, but these are important questions. Without an explanation of what the "cut" is relative to, it deserves treating with great scepticism.

 

Councils just have to find creative ways to redistribute spending and be more efficient.

Welfare had to be reformed. Tax credit bill was out of control.

My concern is there are a lot of question marks and we cant just have another 5 years of cuts if targets are missed. Its bad for a host of reasons.

 

As it stands the pound looks strong, the economy is stable if not levelling off. But its early days.

[unbeliever]

The other thing is unemployment is slowly rising. Salary increases down a few points.

Were hitting a plateau. Not a good sign for this governments plans.

 

This new living wage nonsense better work as planned, because if private doesnt pick up the slack as projected, more setbacks on the way.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 12:05 ----------

 

 

Councils just have to find creative ways to redistribute spending and be more efficient.

Welfare had to be reformed. Tax credit bill was out of control.

My concern is there are a lot of question marks and we cant just have another 5 years of cuts if targets are missed. Its bad for a host of reasons.

 

As it stands the pound looks strong, the economy is stable if not levelling off. But its early days.

 

Are the cuts real? Have budgets actually gone down? If they have gone down is the figure genuine or is it relative to something other than what the budget was before?

[TJC1]

Same for the 300 million for Sheffield council. Is it relative to before, to what it would have been if it were gdp linked, to what they asked for?

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/finance/2015-2016-budget.html

 

238 million since 2010. 300 million up to 2020.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 12:16 ----------

 

20bn of whitehall cuts. Osborne expects more for less was the headline.

 

We do have 300bn worth of land to sell off. Which will fund new housing initiatives.

[unbeliever]

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/finance/2015-2016-budget.html

 

238 million since 2010. 300 million up to 2020.

 

Relative to what?

What was their total budget for each year?

 

Their total budget is around £1.4 billion, so this would imply that they've been cutting under 1% per year, but is that the reality. Has the total budget actually gone down at any point?