So much for George Osborne being a lightweight...

[e77]

I am not sure how they will do it, but I think the biggest saving needs to come from the biggest government expenditure, welfare.

Also, non frontline public sector jobs need to be run on more business lines.

 

[vulture]

just make sure you never let labour anywhere near goverment again

 

[clapham_gull]

Trooping the colour is one of those traditions that gives a reason to still be proud of this country, and attracts thousands of tourists as well no doubt.
I believe defence should be one area of spending protected from cuts; defending the nation is the first duty of any government. We should slash spending on the welfare state, particularly Child Benefit and all child related benefits. In this overpopulated country on this overpopulated planet, it is madness to continue giving financial incentives to those who breed irresponsibly.

Does that include the Royal Family ?

 

[jimhigham]

I work for a private sector company but I don't work for a bank! I have never, ever wanted to work for a bank nor ever will.

Since Autumn 2008 I have had had no pay rise and I have seen a 20% reduction in staff numbers. I know I am one of the lucky ones.

Most of my friends whom work in the private sector (in fact I actually don't really know anyone whom works in a bank) have similar situtuatons, redundancies, businesses failing, pay freezes or cuts.

Have public sector services had to face a 20% slashing of their budgets etc? The real chance of business failure?

We are all in this together, there is no use saying it was the banks (private industry). The banks operate(d) under the laws of the land implemented by the governement of that time whom were.... Labour (and Brown actually made it easier, with a laissez faire attitude for them to do what they did!) The buck stops with the law makers i.e the government not those whom operate under their guidelines. If the guidelines were wrong (which they obviously were) the government should change them before it is too late, that is why we elect them, to look after (all of our) interests.

Is the correct answer...

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Is the correct answer...

\

Is It?

Seeing as the banks control the currency your company uses for cash flow, the loans and interest rate for the cave you live in and has shares in the global institutions that supply your food and energy needs I would say that they would have a strong influence in any group of people you elect as government.

The fact is that we have very little choice between the parties on offer who all are being controlled by global institutions.

Just where did all those poor black people in America who defaulted on loans that were packaged up and sold to the banks who sold them to the financial speculators go to?

The question is why are their so many millionaires who are in politics?

 

[beorhthelm]

\

Is It?

Seeing as the banks control the currency your company uses for cash flow, the loans and interest rate for the cave you live in and has shares in the global institutions that supply your food and energy needs I would say that they would have a strong influence in any group of people you elect as government.

its the governments, not the banks at fault. because while governments have made noise about how the banks should ease lending, the regulators have been insisting they stick strictly to their capitial/loan ratios. no government has had the balls to instruct banks (even when shareholders) to lend. meanwhile they've given them liquidity thought QE which has been used to shore up the balance sheet rather then lend. again, no criteria was placed on the QE largesse.

 

[DJ Leon]

Well, well. After all the tripe posted about how out of touch he's been with the rest of the world, and how Gordon 'Spend, Spend, Spend' Brown was leading the world out of recession, look who's ideas are getting adopted/accepted around the world.

No doubt the rest of the world don't understand and 'Prudence' has been right all along - yeah.

I think he's doing the right thing and I think the rest of the world is doing the right thing. But if you think Osbourne is a political heavyweight then frankly, you're nuts.

 

[ROKERITE]

Does that include the Royal Family ?

None of the generations of the Royal Family younger than the Queen have more than two children. This, whether a conscious decision or not, is deserving of commendation. Prince Philip has long been an advocate of population control. I can only presume he saw the light after Andrew and Edward arrived, and could he turn back the clock, would have stopped after Anne.

 

[larus]

I think he's doing the right thing and I think the rest of the world is doing the right thing. But if you think Osbourne is a political heavyweight then frankly, you're nuts.

No, I don't think he's a political heavyweight. However, a lof of the lefties on here have been saying how out of touch he's been and how Gordon asaved the world. It now transpires that other governemtns have woken up to the fact that you can't get out of debt by borrowing more, which is what George/the Tories have been saying.

That's the point I was making; and it was another chance to try to make some of the lefties wake up and realise that we can't afford the level of public services which they (and we all) may aspire to. Aspiration is one thing; affordability is the most important factor though.

 

[El Presidente]

No, I don't think he's a political heavyweight. However, a lof of the lefties on here have been saying how out of touch he's been and how Gordon asaved the world. It now transpires that other governemtns have woken up to the fact that you can't get out of debt by borrowing more, which is what George/the Tories have been saying.

I disagree, government spending initiatives WERE required globally 18 months ago to stop the recession becoming a depression, and on this issue Osborne was out of line with all the other nations.

As economic recovery starts, all the parties, including Labour, and those overseas, were in agreement that governments had to start repaying debt. The point they are all arguing over is by how much, and when should it start?

 

[sten_super]

I disagree, government spending initiatives WERE required globally 18 months ago to stop the recession becoming a depression, and on this issue Osborne was out of line with all the other nations.

As economic recovery starts, all the parties, including Labour, and those overseas, were in agreement that governments had to start repaying debt. The point they are all arguing over is by how much, and when should it start?

Absolutely, Osbourne was on the wrong side of the fence 18 months ago. However it's clear that Darling is the wrong side of the fence now. Cuts are needed immediately, as seems to be recognised by the G20, whereas Labour supposedly wanted to put off cuts until 2011.

The depth of the cuts is clearly the big issue, and while the UK and Germany want to cut hard and fast, the US and France want to avoid brutal cuts. One terrible misnomer is the politicians talking about 'growth friendly cuts'. Given that these cuts are part of an overall cut in prublic spending, there is no such thing as a cut which is friendly to economic growth. What is difficult is trying to make sufficient levels of cuts without causing undue damage to the economic recovery.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think he's doing the right thing and I think the rest of the world is doing the right thing. But if you think Osbourne is a political heavyweight then frankly, you're nuts.

I couldn't give a toss if he's a "political heavyweight" ( whatever that might be ), just as long as he makes the correct decisions for getting us out of the current mess we find ourselves in.

 

[ROSM]

I couldn't give a toss if he's a "political heavyweight" ( whatever that might be ), just as long as he makes the correct decisions for getting us out of the current mess we find ourselves in.

But that's the wonderful thing about this - we wont know if the alternative approach would have worked. Osborne clearly was against financial intervention 18 months ago whereas Brown was for it. Most were persuaded to do this and it seems to have had some benefit. But would Osborne's way have worked better - would Brown/Darling's way work better now? We may never know.

But anybody who says that because the finance ministers dont support further financial intervention now means Osborne was right then is making a huge assumption. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Simster]

I disagree, government spending initiatives WERE required globally 18 months ago to stop the recession becoming a depression, and on this issue Osborne was out of line with all the other nations.

As economic recovery starts, all the parties, including Labour, and those overseas, were in agreement that governments had to start repaying debt. The point they are all arguing over is by how much, and when should it start?

Absolutely right. My view is that there is nothing wrong with government borrowing at all, providing it is manageable and can be paid back. We were a triple A rated nation which meant the cost of borrowing was low, and so large borrowing was entirely acceptable. The last government were absolutely right to borrow their way out of a recession, as the economy would have ground to a halt and caused wide-spread depression if we'd simply pulled up the drawbridge and spent nothing, which was Osborne's alternative.

However, I have to admit that there comes a point when you have to stop borrowing - and the extent to which the last government borrowed is clearly absurd, seeing as we are now in a situation where 10p for every £1 claimed in tax is now being spent on interest alone. To have needed to borrow that much suggests that a lot of what was spent was completely wasted.

 

[London Calling]

Public sector money is tight and always has been especially since the 80's. All over local government, NHS, deficiencies in revenue monies, restrict the quality of services we can receive.

What most people seem to forget on here, is that public services are very much that, services to the public. For many people and communities, these services are literally what keeps them alive and provide the quality of life fit for a modern wealthy economy.

I have said on here, most public services are based and delivered on public legislation: teachers, services and care for the elderly, refuge collection, health and safety and then we have the NHS.

I am always amused by the "cut, cut and cut " mantra, most people haven't a bloody clue what to cut, but ""staff and waste".


What waste lets be specific, what staff lets be specific?

Is it teachers, Police, home helps?

THe Tories actually love this situation, for once they seem to be able to come in with a blank canvas. An opportunity to cut back the state?

Ultimately, this is the question.

What public services do people want in the UK?

And what quality do we want?

Just cutting for cutting sake is the arse way of doing it and in reality will be the usual, no recruitment and natural wastage, which doesn't actually deliver a new big Government.

 

[London Calling]

I disagree, government spending initiatives WERE required globally 18 months ago to stop the recession becoming a depression, and on this issue Osborne was out of line with all the other nations.

As economic recovery starts, all the parties, including Labour, and those overseas, were in agreement that governments had to start repaying debt. The point they are all arguing over is by how much, and when should it start?

With many analysts now staing, if too many countries in Europe start cutting back to early, it could bring them all down. But didn't one of the Leaders state that in the eelction?

 

[sten_super]

With many analysts now staing, if too many countries in Europe start cutting back to early, it could bring them all down. But didn't one of the Leaders state that in the eelction?

'Bring them all back down' in what sense?
The issue is this; cutting spending runs the risk of a return to recession, particularly here in the UK where growth has been neglible, while maintaining current spending risks a full blown debt crisis a la Greece.

I actually think that we probably will experience the dreaded double-dip recession, but I'm not sure that it's avoidable. It's clear now that the spending that was undertaken during the recession to try to limit its effects was in truth unaffordable for many European economies, and serious steps have to be undertaken to cut these deficits before they become completely unmanageable.

 

[London Calling]

'Bring them all back down' in what sense?
The issue is this; cutting spending runs the risk of a return to recession, particularly here in the UK where growth has been neglible, while maintaining current spending risks a full blown debt crisis a la Greece.

I actually think that we probably will experience the dreaded double-dip recession, but I'm not sure that it's avoidable. It's clear now that the spending that was undertaken during the recession to try to limit its effects was in truth unaffordable for many European economies, and serious steps have to be undertaken to cut these deficits before they become completely unmanageable.

Basically bring them all back into a possibly more severe recession.

But as you note and do we really know? The second recession could have already been on the way.



To me the recession, the "mess" of the economy, is the excuse.

THe real debate for the 21st Century, is what level of public services/ intervention do we want? And in reality this is more of an issue for Englad.

Because the three natiions of Ireland, Wales and SCotland quite clearly are desiring big Government with quality services.

In England the dwellers of the cities, the main users of public social services, demand the services, but do they wish to pay for them and middle England, seem at the moment to want minimal services?

LC

 

[larus]

I disagree, government spending initiatives WERE required globally 18 months ago to stop the recession becoming a depression, and on this issue Osborne was out of line with all the other nations.

As economic recovery starts, all the parties, including Labour, and those overseas, were in agreement that governments had to start repaying debt. The point they are all arguing over is by how much, and when should it start?

Well, that's a matter of opinion. What was needed was credit to be available to businesses, not 'wasted' public spending. Throwing borrowed money around is not very clever, especially when governments have a very bad track record of getting value for money. This is typical of Labour; 'we've invested x more bollions in Education/NHS or whatever'. However, how much benefit per buck?

 

[beorhthelm]

THe real debate for the 21st Century, is what level of public services/ intervention do we want? And in reality this is more of an issue for Englad.

Because the three natiions of Ireland, Wales and SCotland quite clearly are desiring big Government with quality services.

yes, they certainly vote for them, but they are fortunate enough to being given large hand outs from UK/Europe to fund them. with a change in economics, they will have to rethink and reprioritise which services they value most like everyone else.