Almost £4b more in cuts coming in the budget.

[iansheff]

Well this is one way our "Caring Government" saves money, take away the mobility cars from the terminally ill.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dying-woman-returns-honeymoon-told-7547946

[banjodeano]

It isn't a huge amount though says George. He told the Andrew Marr Show: "I think we can find those savings. Of course you can George, after all it doesn't affect you and all your cronies.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-reveals-new-4billion-7548115

But you wouldnt have to find as much Gideon if you and your cronies paid some tax

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-receives-dividend-payment-from-family-business-that-pays-no-corporation-tax-a6873151.html

[Guderian]

Because they were already overspending before the crunch came.

That's what Liz Kendall Tristram Hunt and Andy Burnham admitted. Are you too dumb to work it out for yourself?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/14/liz-kendall-says-labour-spent-too-much_n_7281202.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11610165/Andy-Burnham-Deficit-was-too-large-when-Labour-was-in-Government.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084450/Labour-did-spend-government-say-leadership-contenders-weren-t-MPs-party-power.html

 

n one of the strongest admissions, Mr Hunt said the party had 'spent too much in the last Labour government', adding ' we did not leave enough headroom to deal with the financial crash'.

You linked to a bar chart in your original post which clearly showed borrowing before the crash in 2008 was almost identical to the sums seen during John Majors government. A small deficit is perfectly normal and is often required to kickstart a flagging economy.

 

Along came the crash, caused in no small part by Tory deregulation of the banks.

Any government would need to borrow hugely in those circumstances.

 

Linking up quotes from Labour MPs (who were themselves seeking the vote) proves nothing. Of course they were going to say that, to make themselves look more electable. Doesn't mean they believed it.

The Tories managed to hoodwink the populace on winning power in 2010, so any vote seeking MP on either side had to abide by this line.

 

If Labour did gaffe, it wasn't bringing the banks into line. It was a banking crisis, pure and simple.

Some learning for you: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

Edited March 13, 2016 by Guderian

[sutty27]

Are you for real?

 

They CHOOSE to have children. They bloody pay for them.

 

If yummy mummy wants to stay at home and look after them full time, one of them needs to work hard enough to be able to afford it.

 

Are you going to suggest the rest of us taxpayers should subsidise their breading CHOICE for them somehow??

 

One parent in work is often not enough these days, when I had kids everything was more affordable and only one of us needed to work.

[alchemist]

Are you for real?

 

They CHOOSE to have children. They bloody pay for them.

 

If yummy mummy wants to stay at home and look after them full time, one of them needs to work hard enough to be able to afford it.

 

Are you going to suggest the rest of us taxpayers should subsidise their breading CHOICE for them somehow??

 

Tax payers will have to pay for a certain amount of children so that when adults reach pension age someone can make the money in the country to pay for them. Or are YOU saying that only the rich can breed?

 

The unofficial policy of the tory party is to kill off the poor and the disabled, are you saying that you support this policy?

[ECCOnoob]

I am saying that generations and generations before us managed to have children without the state funding their lifestyle on benefits, providing working people with additional income just because they choose to breed nor providing free childcare to all and sundry.

 

What did they do that was different? It wasn't just rich people having children was it. How did our parents and grandparents cope?

 

I don't buy this simplistic argument of "things were cheaper back then". In terms of food and household goods they certainly were not.

 

Shock horror. There was a life before tax credits. There was a life before entire second and third generation of families got away with never working a day in their lives.

 

What's different now?

[ricgem2002]

Are you going to suggest the rest of us taxpayers should subsidise their breading CHOICE for them somehow??

that's exactly what I was thinking about the kids of our mps

[banjodeano]

that's exactly what I was thinking about the kids of our mps

 

and our leaching royal family

[*_ash_*]

I am saying that generations and generations before us managed to have children without the state funding their lifestyle on benefits, providing working people with additional income just because they choose to breed nor providing free childcare to all and sundry.

 

What did they do that was different? It wasn't just rich people having children was it. How did our parents and grandparents cope?

 

I don't buy this simplistic argument of "things were cheaper back then". In terms of food and household goods they certainly were not.

 

Shock horror. There was a life before tax credits. There was a life before entire second and third generation of families got away with never working a day in their lives.

 

What's different now?

 

 

.

[Eric Arthur]

I have drawn the correct conclusion. It's up to you to make your case, if you have one.

No it isn't. I don't have any case to make but I can spot someone who isn't interested in knowing facts that challenge their poorly informed opinion. Please go and do some learning first, then come back better informed for a chat. It isn't my job to explain what is behind the headlines just so that you aren't working from a position of ignorance.