Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-cuts. This country can't rely on subsidies and constant borrowing to fuel the economy, we have to make decisive cuts in the short run, for better opportunities in the long run.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infernalcradle)
    do you live with your head under the ground?....

    the military have been royally shafted by the SDSR....
    Oops. Did not mean it in that context. I meant as in funding of the conflict. I.e. Britain's role in the Libyan conflict. The fact that the SDSR has restricted the military, it makes it worse that Britain can still somehow find the funding to carry out air strikes over Libya.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Got a link to Labour's economic plan?
    This.

    Great plan or no plan? Tories or Labour?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The cuts are hurting, but they are not working.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Oops. Did not mean it in that context. I meant as in funding of the conflict. I.e. Britain's role in the Libyan conflict. The fact that the SDSR has restricted the military, it makes it worse that Britain can still somehow find the funding to carry out air strikes over Libya.
    haha, fair enough....then yes, I totally agree...

    we have just lost Ark Royal as "we won't be needing aircraft carriers for 10 yrs" and now as a result, we are pretty much unable to project any real power as jets are flying from stupidly far away as they have no carriers to land on....

    this is the sort of thing that shows we cant predict what is gonna happen in the world and so need a constantly well funded/equipped military....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    The cuts are hurting, but they are not working.
    oh sod off...

    what's labour's plan?....

    oh wait...I forgot....they don't have one....

    and who got us into this mess.....

    oh yes....labour...

    see where I'm going here?
    Offline

    12
    I'm pro cuts, although I do fear the government is doing too little to encourage private sector growth, which is necessary to reduce unemployment.

    Let's start with some figures. In 2010-2011 government spending was around £704bn and tax revenues were £541bn and that deficit has taken our debt to over a trillion pounds now (since it was about £900bn before.) Of that spending, over £190bn was social protection, over £120bn was NHS, the interest on our debt cost around £43bn and defence cost £40bn.

    Tories plan = end deficit by 2015 by cutting £80bn by then.
    Labour plan = half deficit by 2015 by cutting £40bn by then.

    Firstly, even the Tories plan to end the deficit by 2015 does nothing to tackle the debt. In fact, it means that every year until the end of Parliament we'll actually be adding to the debt. These cuts are simply designed to reach the point where we're not spending more than we bring in. The hope then will be that whatever government is elected in 2015 will then work on reducing our debt burden. In contrast Labour want us to "only" be losing money half as quickly as we are now by the year 2015. But that obviously means more debt, more interest on the debt, especially if the interest rates rise on our debt because people have no confidence that we'll ever pay it back.

    Secondly, the difference of £40bn over 5 years between the parties doesn't seem that huge. £8bn a year is the difference between addressing a 'no cuts' rally, and being the source of their anger. But look at how much we spend on various things every year, is that £8bn really so much? All in all, by 2015 the state will be 3.5% smaller than when the Tories came in. Put another way, the state will be the same size as it was in 2005. The scale of the cuts seem to be exaggerated.

    Thirdly, look at what we spend our money on. It's all the stuff lefties want, military spending is tiny compared to the NHS or social protection. Therefore I'm very sceptical when lefties say "spend more on health, increase benefits, raise pensions, spend more on public transport etc .... and fund it by cutting military spending". Whilst I'd love to save £4bn a year by leaving Afghanistan, that money is very easily swallowed up by institutions such as the NHS which now cost more than £120bn a year.

    So yes, I support the cuts because I think eliminating the deficit by 2015 is the very least we should do. If anything, the cuts should be deeper. However, this does rely on private sector growth to put those ex public sector workers into new jobs. The budget eliminated £350m worth of red tape, when it costs business over £90bn a year. That's a 0.4% reduction and frankly isn't good enough. Nor are the pithy tax incentives we're giving. The government should really slash the red tape and tax burdens faced by businesses in this country in order to tackle unemployment. If the government did this, I really don't believe that extra £40bn cuts over a parliament would be such a big deal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infernalcradle)
    oh sod off...

    what's labour's plan?....

    oh wait...I forgot....they don't have one....

    and who got us into this mess.....

    oh yes....labour...

    see where I'm going here?
    Labour's plan would be to halve the deficit in this Parliament. We believe that the ConDem's approach is not only unfair, but it is actually going to end up costing the country money in the long run, as it is hampering growth.

    No, Labour did not get us into this mess. The global banking crisis did.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I'm pro cuts, although I do fear the government are doing too little to encourage private sector growth, which is necessary to reduce unemployment.

    Let's start with some figures. In 2010-2011 government spending was around £704bn and tax revenues were £541bn and that deficit has taken our debt to over a trillion pounds now (since it was about £900bn before.) Of that spending, over £190bn was social protection, over £120bn was NHS, the interest on our debt cost around £43bn and defence cost £40bn.

    Tories plan = end deficit by 2015 by cutting £80bn by then.
    Labour plan = half deficit by 2015 by cutting £40bn by then.

    Firstly, even the Tories plan to end the deficit by 2015 does nothing to tackle the debt. In fact, it means that every year until the end of Parliament we'll actually be adding to the debt. These cuts are simply designed to reach the point where we're not spending more than we bring in. The hope then will be that whatever government elected in 2015 will then work on reducing our debt burden. In contrast Labour want us to "only" be losing money half as quickly as we are now by the year 2015. But that obviously means more debt, more interest on the debt, especially if the interest rates rise on our debt because people have no confidence that we'll ever pay it back.

    Secondly, the difference of £40bn over 5 years between the parties doesn't seem that huge. £8bn a year is the difference between addressing a 'no cuts' rally, and being the source of their anger. But look at how much we spend on various things every year, is that £8bn really so much? All in all, by 2015 the state will be 3.5% smaller than when the Tories came in, is that such a huge amount? Put another way, the state will be the same size as it was in 2005. The scale of the cuts seem to be exaggerated.

    Thirdly, look at what we spend our money on. It's all the stuff lefties want, military spending is tiny compared to the NHS or social protection. Therefore I'm very sceptical when lefties say "spend more on health, increase benefits, raise pensions, spend more on public transport etc .... and fund it by cutting military spending". Whilst I'd love to save £4bn a year by leaving Afghanistan, that money is very easily swallowed up by institutions such as the NHS which now cost more than £120bn a year.

    So yes, I support the cuts because I think eliminating the deficit by 2015 is the very least we should do. If anything, the cuts should be deeper. However, this does rely on private sector growth to put those ex public sector workers into new jobs. The budget eliminated £350m worth of red tape, when it costs business over £90bn a year. That's a 0.4% reduction and frankly isn't good enough. Nor are the pithy tax incentives we're giving. The government should really slash the red tape and tax burdens faced by businesses in this country in order to tackle unemployment. If the government did this, I really don't believe that extra £40bn cuts over a parliament would be such a big deal.
    Wow, thanks for this answer, I wish I could be more knowledgeable when it comes to Politics, it's something I've grown fond of since the General Election but never really researched it as much as I'd have liked to.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I'm pro cuts, although I do fear the government are doing too little to encourage private sector growth, which is necessary to reduce unemployment.

    Let's start with some figures. In 2010-2011 government spending was around £704bn and tax revenues were £541bn and that deficit has taken our debt to over a trillion pounds now (since it was about £900bn before.) Of that spending, over £190bn was social protection, over £120bn was NHS, the interest on our debt cost around £43bn and defence cost £40bn.

    Tories plan = end deficit by 2015 by cutting £80bn by then.
    Labour plan = half deficit by 2015 by cutting £40bn by then.

    Firstly, even the Tories plan to end the deficit by 2015 does nothing to tackle the debt. In fact, it means that every year until the end of Parliament we'll actually be adding to the debt. These cuts are simply designed to reach the point where we're not spending more than we bring in. The hope then will be that whatever government elected in 2015 will then work on reducing our debt burden. In contrast Labour want us to "only" be losing money half as quickly as we are now by the year 2015. But that obviously means more debt, more interest on the debt, especially if the interest rates rise on our debt because people have no confidence that we'll ever pay it back.

    Secondly, the difference of £40bn over 5 years between the parties doesn't seem that huge. £8bn a year is the difference between addressing a 'no cuts' rally, and being the source of their anger. But look at how much we spend on various things every year, is that £8bn really so much? All in all, by 2015 the state will be 3.5% smaller than when the Tories came in, is that such a huge amount? Put another way, the state will be the same size as it was in 2005. The scale of the cuts seem to be exaggerated.

    Thirdly, look at what we spend our money on. It's all the stuff lefties want, military spending is tiny compared to the NHS or social protection. Therefore I'm very sceptical when lefties say "spend more on health, increase benefits, raise pensions, spend more on public transport etc .... and fund it by cutting military spending". Whilst I'd love to save £4bn a year by leaving Afghanistan, that money is very easily swallowed up by institutions such as the NHS which now cost more than £120bn a year.

    So yes, I support the cuts because I think eliminating the deficit by 2015 is the very least we should do. If anything, the cuts should be deeper. However, this does rely on private sector growth to put those ex public sector workers into new jobs. The budget eliminated £350m worth of red tape, when it costs business over £90bn a year. That's a 0.4% reduction and frankly isn't good enough. Nor are the pithy tax incentives we're giving. The government should really slash the red tape and tax burdens faced by businesses in this country in order to tackle unemployment. If the government did this, I really don't believe that extra £40bn cuts over a parliament would be such a big deal.
    I agree wholeheartedly with this....

    but I do wonder if red tape was cut by say....20bn of the 90bn it currently costs....so just over 20%....

    would the increased revenues from new employees and businesses in this country be worth more than that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) which reforms are you referring too?

    2) what evidence do you have that this is for ideological reasons?
    1. Mostly the reforms by the Department for Work and Pensions. They are in the process of transferring claimants of incapacity benefit (a benefit claimed by people who have been assessed as not well enough to work) to a new 'Employment and Support Allowance' which is then going to be incorporated into the Universal Credit. The assessments for this are done by 'medical professionals' (not necessarily doctors) using a computer program with tick-box answers. This inadequate reassessment has led to a huge number of appeals, 70% of which have been successful.
    They are also discontinuing the Access to Work fund which provides money for small businesses to make adjustments to the workplace in order to comply with the Equality Act. This makes it in some cases financially impossible for small companies to employ staff with disabilities or health conditions, and leads to greater discrimination.
    Finally they are also replacing the Disability Living Allowance, a non-means tested payment to cover additional costs related to a disability with a new Personal Independence Payment. The fraud rate for DLA is 0.5% but the government is predicting 20% less money spent on PIP, meaning either the amount or the eligibility criteria is going to change. They are also debating whether to alter the criteria from considering the claimant's ability to walk to considering their ability to 'mobilise', including the use of sticks, crutches, wheelchairs and any other assistive devices. This of course fails to take into account the fact that having a stick does not remove the disability or costs associated with it.

    2. I see these reforms as ideological because they are not, overall, saving any money. The government are paying a private company (ATOS) to do the assessments rather than using evidence from GPs. The appeals are costing as much if not more than any minor savings in payments. If there are less funds for accessibility improvements there will be more unemployed people with disabilities who could - and should - work, but can't because the adaptations aren't there, so this will lead to more claims for ESA and JSA.

    Sorry, that was a whopper of a post! *gets off soapbox*
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Labour's plan would be to halve the deficit in this Parliament. We believe that the ConDem's approach is not only unfair, but it is actually going to end up costing the country money in the long run, as it is hampering growth.

    No, Labour did not get us into this mess. The global banking crisis did.
    Halve the deficit?

    thats absolute crap....the coalition rightly are trying to get rid of it completely....although I fear that labour will be voted back in and we'll be in exactly the same problem as they overspend like mad....

    and when I last looked, the bankers weren't spending left right and centre....they didn't sell our gold, they didn't increase our debt AND deficit almost exponentially....they didn't just throw money at everything, they didn't fail generations of children....

    that was labour.....
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElfManiac)
    1. Mostly the reforms by the Department for Work and Pensions. They are in the process of transferring claimants of incapacity benefit (a benefit claimed by people who have been assessed as not well enough to work) to a new 'Employment and Support Allowance' which is then going to be incorporated into the Universal Credit. The assessments for this are done by 'medical professionals' (not necessarily doctors) using a computer program with tick-box answers. This inadequate reassessment has led to a huge number of appeals, 70% of which have been successful.
    They are also discontinuing the Access to Work fund which provides money for small businesses to make adjustments to the workplace in order to comply with the Equality Act. This makes it in some cases financially impossible for small companies to employ staff with disabilities or health conditions, and leads to greater discrimination.
    Finally they are also replacing the Disability Living Allowance, a non-means tested payment to cover additional costs related to a disability with a new Personal Independence Payment. The fraud rate for DLA is 0.5% but the government is predicting 20% less money spent on PIP, meaning either the amount or the eligibility criteria is going to change. They are also debating whether to alter the criteria from considering the claimant's ability to walk to considering their ability to 'mobilise', including the use of sticks, crutches, wheelchairs and any other assistive devices. This of course fails to take into account the fact that having a stick does not remove the disability or costs associated with it.

    2. I see these reforms as ideological because they are not, overall, saving any money. The government are paying a private company (ATOS) to do the assessments rather than using evidence from GPs. The appeals are costing as much if not more than any minor savings in payments. If there are less funds for accessibility improvements there will be more unemployed people with disabilities who could - and should - work, but can't because the adaptations aren't there, so this will lead to more claims for ESA and JSA.

    Sorry, that was a whopper of a post! *gets off soapbox*
    ok, let us assume that the social security reforms you mentioned aren't working. what conservative ideological doctrine is sanctioning these reforms?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infernalcradle)
    and when I last looked, the bankers weren't spending left right and centre....they didn't sell our gold, they didn't increase our debt AND deficit almost exponentially....they didn't just throw money at everything, they didn't fail generations of children....

    that was labour.....
    Utter drivel.

    Let me make this very clear. Labour's spending pre-financial crisis did not cause the 'mess' we are currently in. Between 1997 and 2008, Labour actually reduced both the deficit and debt as a percentage of GDP left behind by the previous Tory government (and we still managed to revolutionise the rotting education system and the sinking NHS! Talk about an achievement, something the country should be thanking us for).

    The main bulk of the national debt that exceeds the debt left behind by the Tories is the result of measures we had to take as a result of the banking failure (if we didn't take those measures, we would have gone into a depression). Selling off the gold is an absolute none point, although I suppose it helps papers like the Daily Mail instil anger into its uneducated Tory readership.

    The mess was caused by a failure of the banking system. Had the Tories been in government when it happened, not only would be up ****creek now, we would almost certainly be in an even worse situation, as the Tories advocated even less banking regulation than New Labour did.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    ok, let us assume that the social security reforms you mentioned aren't working. what conservative ideological doctrine is sanctioning these reforms?
    Shrinking the state; lack of incentives to be reliant on benefits (which in the main I agree with, it's just that it doesn't work here); the idea that society will take over support no longer provided by the government (How? With what money?) and the general principle of taxing less and providing less - more money in taxpayers' pockets.

    However bureaucratic it sometimes is, the welfare state is very important to ensure that as far as possible, everyone has enough to get by on.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by C92119F)
    In the Miliband/Balls conference the other day they outlined what they would do if they were in power. They wish to halve the budget deficit over a period of 4 years, and make cuts at a steady pace, their policy is to pump money into the economy to boost aggregate demand in order to increase consumer confidence which in turn creates a multiplier effect, leading to the creation of jobs. More Jobs = More Tax Revenue + Less expenditure on benefits such as JSA etc, reducing the deficit.
    Watch the broken window fallacy video in my signature. I don't believe governments can just pump money into the economy and encourage spending. They get that money through taxes, which people would have spent anyway. Seriously, watch the video, it explains it well.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    But we can raise £120bn from a 100% tax on bankers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Utter drivel.

    Let me make this very clear. Labour's spending pre-financial crisis did not cause the 'mess' we are currently in. Between 1997 and 2008, Labour actually reduced both the deficit and debt as a percentage of GDP left behind by the previous Tory government (and we still managed to revolutionise the rotting education system and the sinking NHS! Talk about an achievement, something the country should be thanking us for).

    The main bulk of the national debt that exceeds the debt left behind by the Tories is the result of measures we had to take as a result of the banking failure (if we didn't take those measures, we would have gone into a depression). Selling off the gold is an absolute none point, although I suppose it helps papers like the Daily Mail instil anger into its uneducated Tory readership.

    The mess was caused by a failure of the banking system. Had the Tories been in government when it happened, not only would be up ****creek now, we would almost certainly be in an even worse situation, as the Tories advocated even less banking regulation than New Labour did.
    well...the education system is worse than rotting as it pretty much condems anyone with a glimmer of hope that isn't a genius to failure...

    here is a little thing to show how slimy and out of touch labour are....and that they refuse to accept they made a mistake.....something the coalition is big enough to be able to do when it does make a mistake and then is rectifies it (ie. the forest issue)

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/bligh...urs_blame_game

    and don't even start saying the economist is wrong as it isn't....(ps. who on earth thinks that running a country with a 2.4% deficit is a good thing???)

    and you are missing the point completely (although I'm betting not accidentally) as we are here to discuss the fall of the banking sector.....the argument is about how if labour weren't going crazy with the cash, when the crisis did happen....we wouldn't have been nearly as screwed as we are now and God knows some of these cuts wouldn't have been needed


    EDIT: and before you accuse me of reading trash like the daily mail.....I read the times....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Watch the broken window fallacy video in my signature. I don't believe governments can just pump money into the economy and encourage spending. They get that money through taxes, which people would have spent anyway. Seriously, watch the video, it explains it well.
    Thank you I will
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Watch the broken window fallacy video in my signature. I don't believe governments can just pump money into the economy and encourage spending. They get that money through taxes, which people would have spent anyway. Seriously, watch the video, it explains it well.
    I don't see anything in your signature
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.