Serious question to all the tory supporters celebrating tonight.

[Man of Harveys]

A message to all the many Tory xenophobes out there - you do realise that Clegg is half Dutch don't you? I mean, not only is that not English, it's not even British... You've let Johnny foreigner into government throught the back door...

You wait until William Hague meets his Spanish wife ("Is there ANYTHING British about Nick Clegg?" the Daily Mail) and asks her to service his hotel room then bring him some sangria with fish and chips.

 

[Joe Gatting's Dad]

There is terrible waste in the labour government with too many people just ticking boxes and doing little constructive work.

How can you have more civil servants in the Ministry of Dfence than members of the armed forces?

Two-thirds of people in the NHS never see patients.

Time for both to be slimmed down WITHOUT affecting the purpose for which they were created.

 

[Trufflehound]

You wait until William Hague meets his Spanish wife ("Is there ANYTHING British about Nick Clegg?" the Daily Mail) and asks her to service his hotel room then bring him some sangria with fish and chips.

It's OK, she can have a good old chinwag with Michael Port-EEE-leo.

 

[pork pie]

South of the rivers where I live they are primarily Catholic.

So, does that make them a Catholic nation?

 

[Trufflehound]

So, does that make them a Catholic nation?

If Geert Wilders's pointy-headed scaremongering were to be believed, it makes them a Muslim nation.

 

[pork pie]

There is terrible waste in the labour government with too many people just ticking boxes and doing little constructive work.

How can you have more civil servants in the Ministry of Dfence than members of the armed forces?

Two-thirds of people in the NHS never see patients.

Time for both to be slimmed down WITHOUT affecting the purpose for which they were created.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Easy, the bloated public sector will be cut back as has been needed for years. This would have normally lead to lower taxes, but now due to the miss-management by Labour, it will at least stop debt rising and reduce the need to increase taxes.

Not only that, but we get rid of a f***ing jock c unt as PM.

Except that you lose the tax revenue that these people are paying to the government, AND have to pay them

a) Redundancy
b) Job seekers allowance

Don't think that it will save any money in the short term - it is far more likely to cost MORE than actually keeping them in work.

 

[Igor Gurinovich?]

Except that you lose the tax revenue that these people are paying to the government, AND have to pay them

a) Redundancy
b) Job seekers allowance

Don't think that it will save any money in the short term - it is far more likely to cost MORE than actually keeping them in work.

not only that but the onward ripple effect that 'several' thousand more unemployed will have on their families/local economies. Without understanding spending patterns, its not known what onward affect this may have on other businesses.
I'm all for cutting inefficiency, but broad brush cuts that the tories have advocated isnt neccesarily the right answer. But of course these soundbites come across well to many voters.

 

[Superphil]

Why do you think it will be better under Cameron and .

He will be kept in line by the Lib Dem coalition, ensuring that balanced decisions are made, which will be a better thing than what Labour have been doing for the past 13 years.

and

He won't be Brown. He won't have Mandleson, Blears, Smith, Blair or any of those other ***** anywhere near power.

I think that sums it up for me.

 

[Igor Gurinovich?]

I think he'll laregly ignore the libdems. why else have the conservatives appointed their own into the key posts, the libdems will be entitled to a voice, but i cant see it being long before are anything but white noise.

 

[simmo]

Except that you lose the tax revenue that these people are paying to the government, AND have to pay them

a) Redundancy
b) Job seekers allowance

Don't think that it will save any money in the short term - it is far more likely to cost MORE than actually keeping them in work.

Utter nonsence, how can coninually paying someone say £20-30,000 a year be more cheaper than giving them a one off lump sum for redundancy of say £5,000 and then allowing them to claim jobseekers allowance (not sure of the sum but think it is a pittance).

It is the bloated public sector that has ballooned under Labour that needs cutting now. Anyone in the private sector knows that in the last two years they have faced massive cost savings, with job losses, redundancies and if you are one of the lucky ones a freeze in wages etc. It is now the public sector's turn I am afraid to say, this will of course cause massive problems with unions etc. but that is what is going to and needs to happen.

 

[Igor Gurinovich?]

I think you'll find that it wont be one off sums of £5k, the compulsary redundancy terms that many in the public sector are entitled to would mean something more substantial..

but of course thats it, cut public sector spending and all our problems will magically dissappear..

 

[simmo]

I think you'll find that it wont be one off sums of £5k, the compulsary redundancy terms that many in the public sector are entitled to would mean something more substantial..

but of course thats it, cut public sector spending and all our problems will magically dissappear..

Well I am sure that is different across all the different types of public sector industries. But why don't you get this, Labour, yes Labour under their administration have left us with the biggest debt we have ever faced, in peace or in wartime.

It is like you as individual owing the banks say £100,000, something has to be done about this. Do you understand that?

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Really sad, awful seeing that smarmy git outside Number 10. An election where no one got what they wanted, not Labour, not liberal, not the conservatives.

How did he have the balls to go in through the front door when hes got to be prime minister by the back?

He didnt win the election Labour lost it and theres a big difference. He blew a 20 point lead in the polls and his new best mate went from being the 'second biggest party' to being even less popular than they were before.

Hardly worth cheering is it?

 

[Igor Gurinovich?]

Well I am sure that is different across all the different types of public sector industries. But why don't you get this, Labour, yes Labour under their administration have left us with the biggest debt we have ever faced, in peace or in wartime.

It is like you as individual owing the banks say £100,000, something has to be done about this. Do you understand that?

ummm, yes thank you i do understand that, and if you check my comments i dont think i was congratulating labours public spending policies. I think i was suggesting that a) it wont be a case of £5k a pop for each public sector worker thats released and b) public sector spending is not the only issue that has contributed to the size of our national debt, but unlike some i havent elaborated on the banking scandal that has cost this country billions (certainly in the short term) or the the way that many of our traditional industries have all but dissappeared..
my point, which wasnt clear the first time, is that there is more than one contributary factor here and solely focussing on the one that features in tory party soundbites is a little misinformed.

 

[binky]

but of course thats it, cut public sector spending and all our problems will magically dissappear..

I can't remember anyone on this board claiming anything so simple.

However, it is clear that since chancellor Brown lost contact with his old mate Prudence, the amount that we spend, as a nation, (government spending), has increased beyond our capacity to earn the money, (taxation).
Year on year, this was allowed to happen, and the gap between spending and income increased, but it was "OK", because the economy was growing, and the numbers could be shuffled around to show that we would balance the books in the future.

Then we had the so called credit crunch. (Many causes, lets not go into them here).
This had a number of effects.
1) It stopped growth in the economy, in fact, the economy got smaller.
2) Tax receipts fell, as people lost jobs, had pay cuts, or slowed discretionary spending.
3) Extra government money was set aside to guaruntee bank deposits, and give the banks some operating capital to carry on business.
4) The Keynsian economics followed by the Labour leadership demanded that government spending increase, to replace the missing personal discretionary spending, and keep the economy going. (Economic stimulus).

Of these, #3 is by far the smalles effect. i.e., the bank bailout is virtually insignificant compared to the reduction in tax take, and the inability to conceal the deficit numbers in a growing economy.

So we are still spending at a rate set when times were good, plus we have extra spending to stimulate the economy, plus there is a financial commitment to keep the banks afloat.
At the same time, there is much less tax coming in.
The gap between spend and income, a.k.a. the deficit, has never been greater.

There are only two ways to deal with this unsustainable state of afffairs.
1) Increase tax.
2) Decrease spending.

Increasing tax has the lamentable effect of further depressing discretionary spend and slowing the economy.
It also decreases savings and investment.
without people saving, there are no funds for government and business to borrow.
This will then lead to a need for even more government "stimulus, requiring more tax... you see where this is going.
So there is a limited amount you can do with tax increases.
Not much wiggle room.
Another way of increasing the tax take is of course growing the economy, so the propion of tax remains constant, but the absolute take goes up. To do this, we are reliant on international trade conditions, (selling each other houses at ever increasing prices does not grow the economy), and international trade conditions are not looking too rosy right now.

This leaves us with cutting spending. a.k.a CUTS! which everyone is getting so worked up about.
There is no choice. Whatever the polititians have said about avoiding cuts is wrong. They lied. (understandably)
We need to return to a position where our national spending is covered by the amount of tax which we raise.
Because the defecit is so high. (We spent circa 168 Billion more than we took in tax in the last financial year), we must reduce it in stages.
Only when the defecit is returned to equilibrium, can we start to pay off the actual debt which will have accumulkated in the mean time.
Already the debt is at record levels, and it will get higher, every year that we fail to eliminate the deficit.
The higher the debt, the more interest we have to pay, the less money there is to spend, the more money we have to borrow.

Sorry, this has gone on a bit, but I hope you now understand a little better why the spending has to stop.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Well I am sure that is different across all the different types of public sector industries. But why don't you get this, Labour, yes Labour under their administration have left us with the biggest debt we have ever faced, in peace or in wartime.

It is like you as individual owing the banks say £100,000, something has to be done about this. Do you understand that?

That debt isn't because of salaries of public sector workers. That's just a tiny drop in the ocean. It's interest payments on PFI's that the Labour admin agreed to to fund new hospitals, schools etc etc.

Real cuts in the public sector that would save serious sums of money mean cuts to Capital projects :

Fewer hospitals.
Fewer Schools.
Smaller Army, Navy, Air Force ( e.g. no new Aircraft Carriers, no Eurofighter )
Scrapping Trident and / or it's replacement.
Less road building.
No investment in High Speed Rail.
No subsidy to fund Olympic Games

etc etc.

The deficit won't be solved by putting a few thousand people out of work, because public sector salaries aren't exactly generous.

 

[k2bluesky]

Labour ALWAYS act like lottery winners with no brains who piss the lot away in 5 years then wonder why they are broke, 'prudence' as a former chancellor once said is the way to go, if only he'd listened to himself but as soon as he got his hands on 'mummy's purse' he couldn't stop himself spending every penny in it. To avoid following Greece, Italy, Portugal etc, who have bloated public sectors into meltdown, financial prudence is required and its usually painful.

 

[simmo]

That debt isn't because of salaries of public sector workers. That's just a tiny drop in the ocean. It's interest payments on PFI's that the Labour admin agreed to to fund new hospitals, schools etc etc.

Real cuts in the public sector that would save serious sums of money mean cuts to Capital projects :

Fewer hospitals.
Fewer Schools.
Smaller Army, Navy, Air Force ( e.g. no new Aircraft Carriers, no Eurofighter )
Scrapping Trident and / or it's replacement.
Less road building.
No investment in High Speed Rail.
No subsidy to fund Olympic Games

etc etc.

The deficit won't be solved by putting a few thousand people out of work, because public sector salaries aren't exactly generous.

Ok but if you are massively in debt as an individual like we as a country are have you ever heard of the phrase cut your cloth as you see it, you can't keep spend, spend, spend like their is no tomorrow othrwise you end up like Greece. It is because of Labour's profligate spending (basically they were overspending even when times were better pre 2008 after the recession when tax revenues were reduced they didn't cut that back) that cuts are going to have to be made now and yes they are going to be very very painful and very very deep. The public sector which under Labour became bloated especially with middle management workers as one example of where cuts could be made.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Utter nonsence, how can coninually paying someone say £20-30,000 a year be more cheaper than giving them a one off lump sum for redundancy of say £5,000 and then allowing them to claim jobseekers allowance (not sure of the sum but think it is a pittance).

As an example, if I were made compulsorily redundant tomorrow, with my length of service, I would be entitled to a payment of £ 60,000 .

" From 1 April 2010, employees made compulsorily redundant will get cash compensation based on length of service – one month’s pay per year of service for the first 5 years, and two months’ pay per year for subsequent service. Compensation will be subject to a maximum of 3 years’ pay where this leads to a payment of no more than £60,000 (or, if higher in the future, £50,000 plus the increase in the median full-time Civil Service earnings since 1 April 2010). In other cases, the payment will be limited to the higher of 2 years’ pay and £60,000 (or the indexed figure described above). "