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

Osborne and the Conservatives to cut public services to pre-war levels watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ecognition-ifs

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30327717

    George Osborne’s plans to increase the speed of public sector spending cuts over the next five years will force a “fundamental re-imagining of the state”, according to analysis of the chancellor’s autumn statement by Britain’s leading tax and spending expert.

    The scale of cuts to departmental budgets and local government will reduce the role of the state to a point where it “will have changed beyond recognition”, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said as it digested the scale of cuts needed to achieve a budget surplus pencilled in by the chancellor for 2019-20.

    The IFS director, Paul Johnson, said Osborne’s proposals to cut the size of the state back to a level last seen before the second world war showed there was now “clear blue water” between the major political parties...
    According to an analysis of Osborne's plans, the Conservatives haven't even completed half of their planned spending cuts yet, after having eased off austerity in 2012 to deliver a recovery based on a massive borrowing spree in time for the election. This means that £55bn of spending cuts are set to occur if the Conservatives win the next election.

    Before WWII, basic rights such as the right to free education, to be looked after if vulnerable and to free healthcare did not exist. The Conservatives want to take us back to such a time, with their free-market religion and ideological spending cuts. These cuts include freezing the incomes of the working poor, but the Conservatives have shown their lack of understanding of economics by pledging unfunded, uncosted £7bn tax cuts for above-average earners. The only alternative to this free-market nonsense is the Labour Party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ecognition-ifs

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30327717



    According to an analysis of Osborne's plans, the Conservatives haven't even completed half of their planned spending cuts yet, after having eased off austerity in 2012 to deliver a recovery based on a massive borrowing spree in time for the election. This means that £55bn of spending cuts are set to occur if the Conservatives win the next election.

    Before WWII, basic rights such as the right to free education, to be looked after if vulnerable and to free healthcare did not exist. The Conservatives want to take us back to such a time, with their free-market religion and ideological spending cuts.
    Utter b*****cks

    Ed balls has claimed this and got torn a new one this Morning on radio 4.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Utter b*****cks

    Ed balls has claimed this and got torn a new one this Morning on radio 4.
    You'll have to do more than that. The Institute for Fiscal Studies as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that George Osborne's plans for this Parliament are in tatters and that he plans to cut public services which millions of working people rely on to unrecognisable levels.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    You'll have to do more than that. The Institute for Fiscal Studies as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that George Osborne's plans for this Parliament are in tatters and that he plans to cut public services which millions of working people rely on to unrecognisable levels.
    Funny, because it was quoted quite clearly on radio 4 this morning when ed balls was saying the OBR agreed with him when he was pulled up and said that the OBR didn't agree with the labour stand point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Funny, because it was quoted quite clearly on radio 4 this morning when ed balls was saying the OBR agreed with him when he was pulled up and said that the OBR didn't agree with the labour stand point.
    I've provided you with evidence from two articles that what I've said is true. You've still failed to provide me with any evidence at all that what you're saying is true.

    As this Institute for Fiscal Studies report states: "We are still looking at borrowing of £108 billion this year - nearly £50 billion more than planned back in 2010."

    According to the article I've just cited: "The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said just £35bn of cuts had already happened, with £55bn yet to come." That's more than half of the spending cuts still to come.

    Osborne's tax cuts are also unfunded, as I said. See also here.

    The Conservative Party are economically incompetent and completely immoral in terms of what they plan to do to Britain. They've borrowed more in the last four years than Labour did in 13 years, while they've taken wealth from the bottom half of the country and given it to the top half, by cutting taxes for millionaires and freezing the incomes of the working poor. This is not the sign of a civilised society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The Conservative have never cut spending, never. All they do is slow the growth of spending and say they are cutting. Then the Progressive Liberals and Socialists say the Conservatives are cutting spending to dupe the population into thinking the government is lessening its role, when it is just on a slow boil until the Progressive Liberals and Socialists get by into power. The Conservatives are a disgrace and no fiscal Conservative should support them.

    Osborne's plans were already shot to pieces as soon as Cameron lost the general election. It is the Liberals who have destroyed any hopes of getting the deficit down with their spending programs and tax cuts. Which has no affect on growth at all because it takes 18 months or so for it to be worked into the GDP numbers. What it did was hold up the employment numbers which is why the unemployment went down.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I've provided you with evidence from two articles that what I've said is true. You've still failed to provide me with any evidence at all that what you're saying is true.

    As this Institute for Fiscal Studies report states: "We are still looking at borrowing of £108 billion this year - nearly £50 billion more than planned back in 2010."

    According to the article I've just cited: "The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said just £35bn of cuts had already happened, with £55bn yet to come." That's more than half of the spending cuts still to come.

    Osborne's tax cuts are also unfunded, as I said. See also here.

    The Conservative Party are economically incompetent and completely immoral in terms of what they plan to do to Britain.
    Yet we're still borrowing significantly less than when labour was in power.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ecognition-ifs

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30327717



    According to an analysis of Osborne's plans, the Conservatives haven't even completed half of their planned spending cuts yet, after having eased off austerity in 2012 to deliver a recovery based on a massive borrowing spree in time for the election. This means that £55bn of spending cuts are set to occur if the Conservatives win the next election.

    Before WWII, basic rights such as the right to free education, to be looked after if vulnerable and to free healthcare did not exist. The Conservatives want to take us back to such a time, with their free-market religion and ideological spending cuts. These cuts include freezing the incomes of the working poor, but the Conservatives have shown their lack of understanding of economics by pledging unfunded, uncosted £7bn tax cuts for above-average earners. The only alternative to this free-market nonsense is the Labour Party.
    Yes, so instead of smaller state, lower taxes, you'd rather have fat state with high taxes and incompetent fiscal mismanagement with even more borrowing.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Um...Can I just point out that 'Cutting services to pre-WWII levels' and 'Cutting spending on services to pre-WWII levels' are not the same thing? Your original post appears to be suggesting that the Government wants to remove free education and free healthcare which is...well...codswallop.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ecognition-ifs

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30327717



    According to an analysis of Osborne's plans, the Conservatives haven't even completed half of their planned spending cuts yet, after having eased off austerity in 2012 to deliver a recovery based on a massive borrowing spree in time for the election. This means that £55bn of spending cuts are set to occur if the Conservatives win the next election.

    Before WWII, basic rights such as the right to free education, to be looked after if vulnerable and to free healthcare did not exist. The Conservatives want to take us back to such a time, with their free-market religion and ideological spending cuts. These cuts include freezing the incomes of the working poor, but the Conservatives have shown their lack of understanding of economics by pledging unfunded, uncosted £7bn tax cuts for above-average earners. The only alternative to this free-market nonsense is the Labour Party.
    To pick up on one slight overstatement, you do not think people got free school education prior to WWII? Not true, my father did, and his father got free education before WWI.

    Try wiki

    "The Fisher Education Act 1918 made secondary education compulsory up to age 14 and gave responsibility for secondary schools to the state. Under the Act, many higher elementary schools and endowed grammar school sought to become state funded central schools or secondary schools. However, most children attended primary (elementary) school until age 14, rather than going to a separate school for secondary education.

    The year 1918 saw the introduction of the Education Act 1918, commonly also known as the "Fisher Act" as it was devised by Herbert Fisher. The act enforced compulsory education from 5–14 years, but also included provision for compulsory part-time education for all 14 to 18-year-olds."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...sory_education
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    You'll have to do more than that. The Institute for Fiscal Studies as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that George Osborne's plans for this Parliament are in tatters and that he plans to cut public services which millions of working people rely on to unrecognisable levels.
    So Labour has a different plan...?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Yet we're still borrowing significantly less than when labour was in power.
    Not really, about a third less.

    Labour were borrowing that during the largest downturn since the great depression.

    The Tories are doing it in the midst of supposedly impressive growth they say.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If it is true then this must be something that is ushered in with red carpets.

    Alas it is probably just another scaremongering article by a dodgy publication.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, it's a great thing. Although it's pretty ludicrous to insinuate that the Tories want to end free education, healthcare or welfare just because of that. Per capita tax revenues are still far higher than back then meaning that we can afford to preserve these services.

    (Original post by Alfissti)
    If it is true then this must be something that is ushered in with red carpets.

    Alas it is probably just another scaremongering article by a dodgy publication.
    It's from the OBR although that really just reflects the sheer size of state spending from 1945-1979 and it's as a percentage of GDP.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Yet we're still borrowing significantly less than when labour was in power.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...t-than-labour/


    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Yes, so instead of smaller state, lower taxes, you'd rather have fat state with high taxes and incompetent fiscal mismanagement with even more borrowing.

    Grow up.
    I think it's immature rightwing libertarians who are always banging on about "muh freedoms" who need to grow up. The sooner people give up this pathetic free-market religion, the better.


    (Original post by Quady)
    So Labour has a different plan...?
    Yes. As the BBC's Robert Peston notes:

    Underlying these choices, as I mentioned last week when Ed Balls outlined his plans to Labour's conference, is a significant difference between the two big parties' plans to eliminate the deficit: the Tories want a surplus on all government spending, including investment, by 2018/19; Labour is aiming to balance the current budget, excluding investment, by 2020.

    That difference means a Tory government would have to find £28.3bn more of spending cuts or tax rises than Labour, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    If it is true then this must be something that is ushered in with red carpets.

    Alas it is probably just another scaremongering article by a dodgy publication.
    Britain's most respected independent economic institution? Yes, quite "dodgy". And, of course, let's usher in the cutting and shrinking of public services which millions rely upon and celebrate the fact that the rich will get even richer! Hurrah, let's have some champagne and then go out to kill some foxes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)

    Britain's most respected independent economic institution? Yes, quite "dodgy". And, of course, let's usher in the cutting and shrinking of public services which millions rely upon and celebrate the fact that the rich will get even richer! Hurrah, let's have some champagne and then go out to kill some foxes.
    You say it as if this dependency culture is a good thing, little wonder Britain is well known as the place where just about everyone is after something for nothing, near similar in mentality to many 3rd World Countries. Cuts and shrinking of public services is exactly are exactly the thing that is most needed yesterday, today and tomorrow else it be a matter of time before deficits become an even bigger problem.

    Absolutely nothing wrong at all with the rich getting richer. You were born poor that's your parents fault no doubt, you are poor then you only have yourself to blame. Try some personal responsibility for a change rather than being a scrounger.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    You say it as if this dependency culture is a good thing, little wonder Britain is well known as the place where just about everyone is after something for nothing
    Perceptions of Britain aren't necessarily grounded in fact. The vast majority of people on benefits need benefits because those who are richer than them - those for whom they work - do not pay them adequate amounts of money.

    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Cuts and shrinking of public services is exactly are exactly the thing that is most needed yesterday, today and tomorrow else it be a matter of time before deficits become an even bigger problem.
    The deficit can be tackled in a number of ways. Cutting public services while at the same time putting forward uncosted tax cuts for the rich is neither economically competent nor fair. Higher taxation on the rich and clamping down on tax avoidance will help to bring the deficit down in a much fairer way.

    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Absolutely nothing wrong at all with the rich getting richer. You were born poor that's your parents fault no doubt, you are poor then you only have yourself to blame. Try some personal responsibility for a change rather than being a scrounger.
    Under almost any moral worldview, there is something wrong with the rich getting richer at the expense of the most vulnerable and the poorest in society. People who are poor don't, first of all, have only themselves to blame - the poorest are often the most hardworking in society, yet they don't get rewarded for their work. They do some of the most difficult jobs, which many of the richest simply wouldn't take, and yet they're paid incredibly little for their work. How is it fair that people who have often inherited large sums of money from their families can then get richer and richer, and have excess money, while others have to rely on food banks to simply give themselves a decent meal? It's those who have inherited large sums of money that are the real scroungers.

    In any case, even if they haven't inherited this money, it's completely immoral to leave some people without homes and without food, while others can afford to buy anything they want. This idea has been present in any moral tradition, from the Eastern religions to Christianity to utilitarianism to conventional morality. Unless, of course, you're part of the Ayn Rand cult and believe that there is no morality, in which case slavery is perfectly fine as long as it allows the rich to get richer, then this is clearly wrong. If the rich are taxed even at 60% as they are in Denmark, which has the lowest rate of inequality in the world, the rich are still going to be richer than the vast majority of the population, both nationally and globally. Small sums of money are worth far more to the poor than they are to the rich.

    But, let's go onto free market territory a bit here. Even the International Monetary Fund has admitted what many of us, and many economists, have known for a long time: inequality is one of the biggest threats to economic growth. The Great Depression was largely caused by massive inequality in the United States, on the levels we're seeing again under this new neoliberal dogma: inequality led to reduced demand, leading to overproduction, which in turn led to unemployment.

    So, whichever way you spin it, whether it's in terms of morality or economic growth, the widening gap between rich and poor, which the Conservatives have been - and will be - contributing to, cannot be justified.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Your argument seems sketchy at best, you're seriously arguing "last time funding was that low this was so, so it must be again" ; I guess we're looking at wwiii in a decade then.

    There is a distinct difference between now an then and that is that things have been unnecessarily bloated and nobody seems willing to sort out these systems because it will lead to a funding cut which would be deeply unpopular even if it had no impact on the running of the service. We don't need the nhs protecting from cuts, we didn't need to plug in an extra 2bn, we just had to tidy it up and that 2bn would have come leaking out of the floorboards, for example.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Absolutely nothing wrong at all with the rich getting richer. You were born poor that's your parents fault no doubt, you are poor then you only have yourself to blame. Try some personal responsibility for a change rather than being a scrounger.
    When some rich people are getting richer due to tax cuts in a time of "austerity" then yes, there is an awful lot wrong with that.

    Do you seriously believe that being poor is some sort of lifestyle choice? "Benefit scrounging" is a massively exaggerated issue and most people on benefits are already in work but with low pay.

    Let's say someone is born to a poor family in an area with poor quality schooling - they will likely find it harder than most to get decent employment when they grow up, for reasons largely out of their control. Finding a job is hard enough as it is.

    If you don't understand that large scale unemployment, low wages and benefits dependency are macroeconomic issues rather than lifestyle choices then I pity you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Perceptions of Britain aren't necessarily grounded in fact. The vast majority of people on benefits need benefits because those who are richer than them - those for whom they work - do not pay them adequate amounts of money.



    The deficit can be tackled in a number of ways. Cutting public services while at the same time putting forward uncosted tax cuts for the rich is neither economically competent nor fair. Higher taxation on the rich and clamping down on tax avoidance will help to bring the deficit down in a much fairer way.



    Under almost any moral worldview, there is something wrong with the rich getting richer at the expense of the most vulnerable and the poorest in society. People who are poor don't, first of all, have only themselves to blame - the poorest are often the most hardworking in society, yet they don't get rewarded for their work. They do some of the most difficult jobs, which many of the richest simply wouldn't take, and yet they're paid incredibly little for their work. How is it fair that people who have often inherited large sums of money from their families can then get richer and richer, and have excess money, while others have to rely on food banks to simply give themselves a decent meal? It's those who have inherited large sums of money that are the real scroungers.

    In any case, even if they haven't inherited this money, it's completely immoral to leave some people without homes and without food, while others can afford to buy anything they want. This idea has been present in any moral tradition, from the Eastern religions to Christianity to utilitarianism to conventional morality. Unless, of course, you're part of the Ayn Rand cult and believe that there is no morality, in which case slavery is perfectly fine as long as it allows the rich to get richer, then this is clearly wrong. If the rich are taxed even at 60% as they are in Denmark, which has the lowest rate of inequality in the world, the rich are still going to be richer than the vast majority of the population, both nationally and globally. Small sums of money are worth far more to the poor than they are to the rich.

    But, let's go onto free market territory a bit here. Even the International Monetary Fund has admitted what many of us, and many economists, have known for a long time: inequality is one of the biggest threats to economic growth. The Great Depression was largely caused by massive inequality in the United States, on the levels we're seeing again under this new neoliberal dogma: inequality led to reduced demand, leading to overproduction, which in turn led to unemployment.

    So, whichever way you spin it, whether it's in terms of morality or economic growth, the widening gap between rich and poor, which the Conservatives have been - and will be - contributing to, cannot be justified.
    My my my. That's a very long winded way of saying that you want somebody else to foot your cost of living bill.
 
 
 
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.