Spending Review

[BigfinLatic]

Sorry, on second thoughts i cant be arsed getting involved.

 

Night.

Edited October 20, 2010 by BigfinLatic

[oafc0000]

In the Press Gallery, behind the Speaker's Chair. Best seats in the House. You can see everything. It was proper grim. Tories in the back row clenching their fists with joy and saying "Yeeaasss" as another 20,000 immoral public servants join the dole queue. Unbelievable really. Scandalous. No one really voted for this either. What a day.

 

How did you score them tickets ?

[mikejh45]

Sorry, on second thoughts i cant be arsed getting involved.

 

Night.

 

Just managed to catch your comments before you bounced it off.....very interesting.......you'll be accused of being a Tory next!!!

[rudemedic]

Listen, Doc. We've been getting on well and I don't want no one spoiling things.

 

Here's something I've thought about a lot. A least your Harmans and your Milibands and your Ballses and your generally comfortably brought up Labourites care. That doesn't always get you the outcome you want, but it's probably a better starting point than not caring.

 

The thing I don't get about this generation of Tories is that they don't care about people. They showed signs of a change when they were in opposition but that went clean out the window. Thatcher's belief was that anarchistic markets could go hand in hand with social stability. Social stability was an aim - the family, the schools, communities, Sundays in church and so on - but the other strand in the philosophy negated it. You can't have those kinds of markets and social stability.

 

This generation of Tories is a further remove from that. The idea is this: if you can't have markets and social stability, why not just have markets?

 

The problem is that the world isn't like what they think it is. In fact, the competition is not between socialism and capitalism any more, but different types of capitalism (Chinese, Russian, American etc.). The Tories seem to have gone for what is known as the Washington version (meaning not American capitalism, but IMF capitalism). The IMF went around debt-defaulting nations in Africa in the '80s telling them to cut spending or else, resulting in poverty, aids epidemics, starvation, civil war and so on. The Tories are going for that model. They don't seem to realise that there are other, more up-to-date models.

 

Their economics, in my view, are no less than mismanagement bordering on vandalism. The tightwads of Richmond, Yorks, no less than the uppity folk in Richmond, Surrey, may or may not feel the cuts. But their country will be a :censored:hole while they cheer the Tories on.

 

I don't have a problem with people saying the well-off politicans from the Tories (I noticed how no-one has mentioned how badly Sheffield is going to be affected) don't have to worry about their constituents being drastically hit by these cuts. I do however, have a problem when people think Labour is a working class party being led by working class people. Harriet Harman's aunt is a countess FFS, politics is a very middle class profession no matter what colour the rosette is. If you truely want to vote for a working class party the likes of the Socialists, and the BNP would have a lot more power.

 

Like I said previously Labour would have had to have made some cuts, but given just how tight they are with the unions I can see the public sector not being chopped as much as it needs to be. I don't want this country being run by the unions, they are after what is good for their members and sod anyone else who isn't a member (but that is their raison d'etre). That is what happened in the 70s, and is currently what is happening in France at the mo. This country has over spent significantly in the last few years, what with two wars, an Olympics for London (and it really is an Olympics for London unless they put on special trains). They've spent money where it has been needed as well, but often in that they've drastically over spent on wages (the unions again) or reaching meaningless targets. It isn't just Labour's doing either (the Tories voted to go to war) and Labour's spending initially was in many ways down to how badly the Tories managed the economy in the early 90s (Black Sunday and all that). The Coalition has done some stuff that I like (no one should make more in benefits that those who go out and work), some stuff that I don't like and some stuff that I think could be done better (I've an idea for universities which I think might work)

 

Incidentally the AIDS epidemic in Africa, although affected by poverty wasn't really caused by the IMF defaulting nations. There's a substanial theory that it is actually an African virus but it was only when some Doctor(s) in California put the pieces together in the 70s that it was really recognised

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

How did you score them tickets ?

 

No tickets necessary. I'm a Hansard Reporter. Wished I wasn't today.

 

Doctor. Listen. I realise that you're a student and it takes not very much to whip you into a state if anger, despair and hatred (which can be ameliorated only if they put you in charge) but don't get sidetracked with this class nonsense. The Tory Chief Whip is an ex-miner! (Albeit a scab.) Several Labour Back Benchers are millionaires! Who cares?

 

The problem with the Tories and the Liberals is their open hatred of a successful economic model.

 

And what's your problem with the unions? Who do you think makes up union membership? Who do you think are Tory party members?

[oafc0000]

No tickets necessary. I'm a Hansard Reporter. Wished I wasn't today.

 

Ah cool...

 

[opinions4u]

The problem with the Tories and the Liberals is their open hatred of a successful economic model.

<bite>

Which one was that then?

 

 

 

[mikejh45]

The problem with the Tories and the Liberals is their open hatred of a successful economic model.

 

And what's your problem with the unions? Who do you think makes up union membership? Who do you think are Tory party members?

 

Tulsehill, it's fairly obvious by your comments where you stand politically, but can you give us something more to talk about........who gave us this "successful economic model" and when?

[latic12345]

Sorry, time to wade in. I'd like to firmly put myself in the blue corner for this debate.

 

What always surprises me in a debate like this is actually people see the CSR from yesterday through the eyes of the media. For example, if you were to believe the media,m SDSR is all about buying ships with no aircraft. If you read the National Security Strategy (available online) and the follow it up with SDSR (also available online) its a fairly complete piece of work. The CSR is similar.

 

The Guardian today suggests the Axe fall on the Poor, whilst the Telegraph suggests that Middle Incomes are footing the bill. To blame either or is too simplistic. Benjamin Disraeli once described "Lies, damn lies and statistics". Principally:

 

If you look at spending cust in isolation, the poor are impacted worst as their real spending power will decrease;If you look at all measures together, the rich are worse off;If you look at the loss of what people take out of the state as a proportion of what they currently take out of the state, the rich are unequivocally worse off.

 

Therefore, in many ways this thread is pointless. Many on it are debating about parlance within their reference window. They are not actually debating about specifics and what they feel is fair or unfair.

 

For a little bit of clarity, there is an excellent explanation of this on the Telegraph website.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmc...lained-in-beer/

 

Please read it. Don't dismiss it as Torygraph bollocks. It makes an excellent point.

 

My second point from what I have seen regards national debt. Whilst, the risk of default is low in the UK, the risk of downgrading the credit rating is not. The triple A credit rating we receive from rating agencies is what allows us to keep actual borrowing rates (for Government) close to the Bank of England base rate. One of the reasons for the divergence of these two rates is the risk of a downgrade to the credit rating. Should this downgrade happen, this divergence would increase making the financing of the debt ever more expensive. Currently, the UK spends £120m on debt interest every single day. Just take a moment to think about what that means. It's a huge sum of money and needs to be reduced. People seem to think that these cuts arent necessary because we can afford to borrow. That is, in some instances true. However, this borrowing is currently funding both operational expenditure and capital expenditure (RDel / CDel for those who work in Government). Borrowing to fund your operational expenditure (wages etc) is criminal. It essentially means that, unaddressed, you are in a viscious cycle of debt and that this could spiral. The cuts are needed to bring spending in line with income to prevent more borrowing, not just to pay the debt off. We are a long long way from this!!

 

I'm am not going to comment on the 'blame the bankers' sentiment in this thread. Bankers are the 21st century Jew. It's that straight forward. It's easy to blame them. They helped pereptuate the symptoms, they are not the root cause. Deep down everyone knows it, however, blaming the bankers is easy and fairly populist.

 

Finally, did anyone see Red Ed's ridiculous performance in PMQs yesterday and then the performance of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Newsnight? They look so naive it's untrue. Red Ed continuing down the line of will you change if circumstances change. Of course they will. However, they cannot say this as the cuts are as much about having credibility in the markets as they are about balancing the books. It really was a pathetic performance. For the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to go on Newsnight and continually suggest that she still needs to read CSR is again crazy. Thank you Unions, you guaranteed a further 5 years of Tory rule at your own conference....

[downender2]

Sorry, time to wade in. I'd like to firmly put myself in the blue corner for this debate.

 

What always surprises me in a debate like this is actually people see the CSR from yesterday through the eyes of the media. For example, if you were to believe the media,m SDSR is all about buying ships with no aircraft. If you read the National Security Strategy (available online) and the follow it up with SDSR (also available online) its a fairly complete piece of work. The CSR is similar.

 

The Guardian today suggests the Axe fall on the Poor, whilst the Telegraph suggests that Middle Incomes are footing the bill. To blame either or is too simplistic. Benjamin Disraeli once described "Lies, damn lies and statistics". Principally:

 

If you look at spending cust in isolation, the poor are impacted worst as their real spending power will decrease;If you look at all measures together, the rich are worse off;If you look at the loss of what people take out of the state as a proportion of what they currently take out of the state, the rich are unequivocally worse off.

 

Therefore, in many ways this thread is pointless. Many on it are debating about parlance within their reference window. They are not actually debating about specifics and what they feel is fair or unfair.

 

For a little bit of clarity, there is an excellent explanation of this on the Telegraph website.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmc...lained-in-beer/

 

Please read it. Don't dismiss it as Torygraph bollocks. It makes an excellent point.

 

My second point from what I have seen regards national debt. Whilst, the risk of default is low in the UK, the risk of downgrading the credit rating is not. The triple A credit rating we receive from rating agencies is what allows us to keep actual borrowing rates (for Government) close to the Bank of England base rate. One of the reasons for the divergence of these two rates is the risk of a downgrade to the credit rating. Should this downgrade happen, this divergence would increase making the financing of the debt ever more expensive. Currently, the UK spends £120m on debt interest every single day. Just take a moment to think about what that means. It's a huge sum of money and needs to be reduced. People seem to think that these cuts arent necessary because we can afford to borrow. That is, in some instances true. However, this borrowing is currently funding both operational expenditure and capital expenditure (RDel / CDel for those who work in Government). Borrowing to fund your operational expenditure (wages etc) is criminal. It essentially means that, unaddressed, you are in a viscious cycle of debt and that this could spiral. The cuts are needed to bring spending in line with income to prevent more borrowing, not just to pay the debt off. We are a long long way from this!!

 

I'm am not going to comment on the 'blame the bankers' sentiment in this thread. Bankers are the 21st century Jew. It's that straight forward. It's easy to blame them. They helped pereptuate the symptoms, they are not the root cause. Deep down everyone knows it, however, blaming the bankers is easy and fairly populist.

 

Finally, did anyone see Red Ed's ridiculous performance in PMQs yesterday and then the performance of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Newsnight? They look so naive it's untrue. Red Ed continuing down the line of will you change if circumstances change. Of course they will. However, they cannot say this as the cuts are as much about having credibility in the markets as they are about balancing the books. It really was a pathetic performance. For the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to go on Newsnight and continually suggest that she still needs to read CSR is again crazy. Thank you Unions, you guaranteed a further 5 years of Tory rule at your own conference....

 

They helped pereptuate the symptoms, they are not the root cause

 

what/who was then....the "crooks" at the top most seem to either still be there or have been ushered out on a nice Golden handshake and pension...

[latic12345]

They helped pereptuate the symptoms, they are not the root cause

 

what/who was then....the "crooks" at the top most seem to either still be there or have been ushered out on a nice Golden handshake and pension...

 

 

It is widely accepted that the trigger of the credit crunch in the UK was the default of subprime mortgages in america, many of which came from building society / government joint venture (nothing to do with investment banks which most people consider when they think of "bankers" as in the States investment banks and normal banks are separated by legislation).

 

In my opinion, the root cause was the expecatations that were set by the previous government of boom and bust and their liberal approach to credit. In the conditions they set, people took on huge amounts of borrowing and the environment that persisted (due to regulation) meant banks lent money. Any firm or person would do the same should they be able to increase their private rents. Therefore, the root cause, in my mind was the regulatory environment and the "removal of boom and bust" which meant people no longer thought they had to prepare for a rainy day...

 

Finally, the Government deficit problem is in part due to the credit crunch but is a different problem. The Government has overspent by £150bn in big handfuls. Of this, approximately £70bn is said to be down to automatic stablisers (i.e. decreased tax revenue and increased benefits payments caused by depressed or even negative growth). The remaining £80bn is a structural deficit. Is money that the Government agreed to spend that they didnt have, money that even if the recession never happened would need to be borrowed. Don't blame the bankers, blame 13 years of borrowing and poor regulation.

[beag_teeets]

Ed's second PMQs was not as good as his first, I fully accept that, I was cringing. However, he did ask Cameron whether unemployment is a price worth paying and a couple of other subtle points that will be referred back to at a later date once the Tories policy fails, which it will.

 

Ed will also get better at PMQs, Cameron was shoddy at the start as are all new opposition leaders. Cameron wanted to end "punch and judy politics", he wore a stripy tent yesterday.

 

Angela Eagle was abysmal on newsnight, as are a number of the shadow cabinet, strange process whereby the labour MPs vote for our shadow cabinet in opposition. I really don't see any benefit in this, apart from maybe cadging some tickets from the new shadow minister for culture, media and sport when I see him tonight.

 

There has been no effective opposition to the government since May and there won't be from the opposition until around May next year. The leadership contest took too long and delayed the party from getting down to the business of regrouping and presenting a credible alternative to both the current government as well as the recent Labour government.

 

I thought the Conservative ministers were pretty poor on the TV last night, oops, I forget, Beaker had to do it, brilliant politics from the Bullingdons, send the infantry out to face the music, their beard if you will. Several LibDem brass are already worried that he has "gone native", I wonder what else the tories will get him to cover for them and what he will get in return?

 

I can't wait to see who pops-up on Question time tonight. Ah, the multi-millionaire transport secretary Philip Hammond and his off-shore bank accounts. Still, we're all in it together, work together in the national interest, as long as that interest isn't taxable in which case we'll work together in the Cayman's interest... Still at least they've put one of their own up.

 

John Denham, Shadow Business Secretary - Labour

Caroline Lucas, Leader of the Green Party - Green (duh!)

General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the British Army (Tory)

The former political editor of The Sun, George Pascoe-Watson - Could be interesting, works for Blair's spin doctor and is Kay Burley's ex - New Labour/who knows?

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee. - I think she dresses to the left.

 

Is it lentil and sandal night round at Nick's? Couldn't they find one LibDem willing to stick their head above the parapet?

[mikejh45]

It is widely accepted that the trigger of the credit crunch in the UK was the default of subprime mortgages in america, many of which came from building society / government joint venture (nothing to do with investment banks which most people consider when they think of "bankers" as in the States investment banks and normal banks are separated by legislation).

 

In my opinion, the root cause was the expecatations that were set by the previous government of boom and bust and their liberal approach to credit. In the conditions they set, people took on huge amounts of borrowing and the environment that persisted (due to regulation) meant banks lent money. Any firm or person would do the same should they be able to increase their private rents. Therefore, the root cause, in my mind was the regulatory environment and the "removal of boom and bust" which meant people no longer thought they had to prepare for a rainy day...

 

Finally, the Government deficit problem is in part due to the credit crunch but is a different problem. The Government has overspent by £150bn in big handfuls. Of this, approximately £70bn is said to be down to automatic stablisers (i.e. decreased tax revenue and increased benefits payments caused by depressed or even negative growth). The remaining £80bn is a structural deficit. Is money that the Government agreed to spend that they didnt have, money that even if the recession never happened would need to be borrowed. Don't blame the bankers, blame 13 years of borrowing and poor regulation.

 

A couple of good contributions that clears some of the financial mist from this argument/debate but don't expect too many nods of agreement.

[beag_teeets]

Don't blame the bankers, blame 13 years of borrowing and poor regulation.

 

 

Don't blame burglars for breaking into your house, blame the police that should have been "regulating" them.

[mikejh45]

Don't blame burglars for breaking into your house, blame the police that should have been "regulating" them.

 

Poor argument BT....there is working within the laws/regulations and working outside of.....no comparison. As latic12345 said the bankers were working within the regulations in force at the time.

[leeslover]

Don't blame burglars for breaking into your house, blame the police that should have been "regulating" them.

The deficit isn't money borrowed to give to bankers, it's the governmental overspend.

 

Oh, and going back to the North-South bollocks, it’s ridiculous stereotyping that adds nothing to the debate. Are civil servants in London doing happy jigs at the moment? There are rather a lot of them. Tulsehill is a dump, Richmond in Yorkshire is posh – ah, I see, Richmond isn’t really Northern because people there aren’t poor. There’s no need for Southerners to stereotype Northerners if we do it for them ourselves.

 

Incidentally, whilst Osbourne is clearly odd and rather slimy, I’m not sure that he should go around beating himself up that his dad created a British based manufacturing business.

 

And lastly, there is something that is being missed in the talk about who is being affected by the cuts. There are a lot of cases where it’s quite right that the poor should be affected, namely where the person is poor because they prefer to sit on their arse all day watching Jeremy Kyle and breeding rather than work. They are in no way the same as working people on low incomes and I think it’s offensive to group them together as if they were.

 

[beag_teeets]

Poor argument BT....there is working within the laws/regulations and working outside of.....no comparison. As latic12345 said the bankers were working within the regulations in force at the time.

 

 

MPs were claiming their expenses in accordance with the rules at the time, they have done nothing wrong....

 

Wrapping debt up as assets, re-entering in the balance column and re-selling in an avaricious manner was complete and utter madness. Whilst it might have been nice and legal you will never convince me that just because the regulation was lacking then it was fine and dandy.

[mikejh45]

MPs were claiming their expenses in accordance with the rules at the time, they have done nothing wrong....

 

Wrapping debt up as assets, re-entering in the balance column and re-selling in an avaricious manner was complete and utter madness. Whilst it might have been nice and legal you will never convince me that just because the regulation was lacking then it was fine and dandy.

 

BT, we are now moving into a differant argument. MP's exploited the rules with tacit approval of their civil-servant paymasters.

 

Nobody has said what the bankers did was morally right, but they legally acted within the regulations. In all walks of business, brinksmanship gets you the order. I can quote with authority that you don't win construction contracts by being totally honest, you win by exploiting loopholes and ambiguity but staying within the law.

[Roger Ritchie]

as long as they dont cut the World Cup my job is safe

 

Where do you work?

[mikejh45]

Where do you work?

 

I reckon he prints the names on the balls to go into the draw.

[beag_teeets]

BT, we are now moving into a differant argument. MP's exploited the rules with tacit approval of their civil-servant paymasters.

 

Nobody has said what the bankers did was morally right, but they legally acted within the regulations. In all walks of business, brinksmanship gets you the order. I can quote with authority that you don't win construction contracts by being totally honest, you win by exploiting loopholes and ambiguity but staying within the law.

 

 

Same argument, just because you are able to do something, doesn't mean you should do it - I'm sure we all have little loop-holes that we could drive a bus through but chose not to.

 

TARP, the UK bailout and QE have taken a hell of a lot of money out of the system, money that could and should have been spent elsewhere - be it "brown's bloated public sector" or "footballers wages for da heroesss" or whichever cause you want to lash yourself to the mast of - it has ended up being used to shift 00000s from one computer screen to another whilst never once seeing the light of day to fill in a hole that only ever existed on other PC screens due to "the masters of the universe" disappearing up the anus of their own brilliance.

 

As a result it is being used as a smoke screen for a round of ideologically motivated cuts that would make Thatcher and Reagan pause for thought. The concept of the British state has just been smashed - "there is no such thing as society" we are on the verge of that becoming a reality.

 

We've just seen what happens when un-regulated financial markets are allowed to run wild, we are about to see the same failure happen in education, health, transport, broadcasting, housing, street-cleaning....

Edited October 21, 2010 by beag_teeets

[leeslover]

Wrapping debt up as assets, re-entering in the balance column and re-selling in an avaricious manner was complete and utter madness.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of bollocks. If someone owes you money, that is an asset. It's not worth as much as cash in the bank, because the person might not pay you, but it is entirely normal and reasonable for debt to be bought and sold. There was absolutely no scam involved in the banking collapse other than people in the US being able to get mortgages they could never pay (due to Bill Clinton's legislation compelling the building societies to give them) and the failure of people in finance to realise that the debts were worth a lot less than they thought they were. Mr 12345 is correct, blaming all the worlds ills on the banks without understanding what happened is not advancing the debate and in fact leaves us open to repeating errors of the past.

[oafc0000]

Where do you work?

 

He has said it before so I am sure he won't mind me saying... He works for MATCH Event services. The guys who do the ticketing and other things for the World Cup etc.

[leeslover]

TARP, the UK bailout and QE have taken a hell of a lot of money out of the system, money that could and should have been spent elsewhere - be it "brown's bloated public sector" or "footballers wages for da heroesss" or whichever cause you want to lash yourself to the mast of

But they haven't. The bailout was hugely profitable, quantitive easing puts (made up) money into the system, not takes it out, TARP is American. The only way in which the banking crisis has impacted the deficit in any significant way is the knock on effects of recession.

[oafc0000]

Sorry, but that's a bunch of bollocks. If someone owes you money, that is an asset. It's not worth as much as cash in the bank, because the person might not pay you, but it is entirely normal and reasonable for debt to be bought and sold. There was absolutely no scam involved in the banking collapse other than people in the US being able to get mortgages they could never pay (due to Bill Clinton's legislation compelling the building societies to give them) and the failure of people in finance to realise that the debts were worth a lot less than they thought they were. Mr 12345 is correct, blaming all the worlds ills on the banks without understanding what happened is not advancing the debate and in fact leaves us open to repeating errors of the past.

 

Well sub prime debt was being packaged as AAA... That was more than a bit naughty... But what you say is pretty much spot on.

 

Welcome to the world of Capitalist Pigs

Edited October 21, 2010 by oafc0000