|
Post by venceremos on Jul 9, 2010 17:03:14 GMT 1
Surprise, surprise, the ConDem government seems to be conning us.
First there's the school building programme debacle, ending with Michael Gove's grovelling apologies that they're not going to replace crumbling buildings, even though he promised they would. Kids and teachers will have to make do with rotting buildings until - who knows when? Oh and there'll be thousands of builders and architects etc losing their jobs as a result.
Today, the Financial Times (hardly a left wing publication) reveals that the new (and supposedly independent) Office for Budget Responsibility tweaked the public sector job loss figures so that they didn't look as bad in the "emergency" Budget.
They forecast 490,000 job losses by 2014/15, rising to 600,000 by the next year. Now it turns out the figure should have been 775,000 (only 175,000 out!). This enabled Cameron to say the job losses wouldn't be much worse than under Labour's proposed cuts when the OBR is now saying they'll be very much worse.
So is the OBR really any more independent of government than the Treasury was?
Got to love these public spending cuts - likely to cut us all the way back into recession and deflation.
What angers me is the way the media and public have been duped into believing there's no alternative and the best government is the one that cuts the deepest. There's no objective evidence of that - it's just one economic theory, there are alternatives.
The Canadian experience of savage cuts is cited as an example to follow. But that worked largely because Canada had the world's biggest economy booming on its doorstep at the time, so it was easy for the Canadian economy to expand. We've got a struggling eurozone on our doorstep and a global economy teetering on the brink of a double dip recession. How do you grow an economy in that environment Mr Osborne?
And we haven't even started on the autumn spending cuts - up to 40%? Ever get the feeling you've been had?
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 9, 2010 17:10:32 GMT 1
Surprise, surprise, the ConDem government seems to be conning us. First there's the school building programme debacle, ending with Michael Gove's grovelling apologies that they're not going to replace crumbling buildings, even though he promised they would. Kids and teachers will have to make do with rotting buildings until - who knows when? Oh and there'll be thousands of builders and architects etc losing their jobs as a result. Today, the Financial Times (hardly a left wing publication) reveals that the new (and supposedly independent) Office for Budget Responsibility tweaked the public sector job loss figures so that they didn't look as bad in the "emergency" Budget. They forecast 490,000 job losses by 2014/15, rising to 600,000 by the next year. Now it turns out the figure should have been 775,000 (only 175,000 out!). This enabled Cameron to say the job losses wouldn't be much worse than under Labour's proposed cuts when the OBR is now saying they'll be very much worse. So is the OBR really any more independent of government than the Treasury was? Got to love these public spending cuts - likely to cut us all the way back into recession and deflation. What angers me is the way the media and public have been duped into believing there's no alternative and the best government is the one that cuts the deepest. There's no objective evidence of that - it's just one economic theory, there are alternatives. The Canadian experience of savage cuts is cited as an example to follow. But that worked largely because Canada had the world's biggest economy booming on its doorstep at the time, so it was easy for the Canadian economy to expand. We've got a struggling eurozone on our doorstep and a global economy teetering on the brink of a double dip recession. How do you grow an economy in that environment Mr Osborne? And we haven't even started on the autumn spending cuts - up to 40%? Ever get the feeling you've been had? no, i didnt vote for them, but they have been doing their best to make sure they wont be around long, so thats something.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jul 9, 2010 17:13:59 GMT 1
Lib Dem councillors in Liverpool are threatening to leave the party because of the education farce. So now we are facing prospect even worse than the 80's. Unemployment a price worth paying is the Tory message well lets hope its them unemployed soon.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 9, 2010 17:18:07 GMT 1
Lib Dem councillors in Liverpool are threatening to leave the party because of the education farce. So now we are facing prospect even worse than the 80's. Unemployment a price worth paying is the Tory message well lets hope its them unemployed soon. cant be long before the libdems start rebelling, or are they so starved of power that they would cling on whilst their core beliefs are quickly swept aside?
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 9, 2010 18:26:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 9, 2010 19:01:36 GMT 1
. Ever get the feeling you've been had? Yes mate by Blair and Brown. Now lets batton down the hatches and hope we can come out the other side smiling.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 9, 2010 19:15:01 GMT 1
. Ever get the feeling you've been had? Yes mate by Blair and Brown. Now lets batton down the hatches and hope we can come out the other side smiling. masochist. why cant the people responsible for this mess(i.e big business and the banking system) batten down their hatches instead of getting a 4% cut in corporation tax? my kids are going to have to go to underfunded schools, just like i had to under thatcher. 3 books per pupil, run down schools and massive unemployment, but its ok so long as that top 1% get their cuts. ffs voting tory is the best way to **** up the country
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2010 19:21:39 GMT 1
And yet you still didn't vote Marcus!
If everyone voted in the next election who didn't this time and spoilt their ballot paper we might, just might, see some change instead of just sitting back and blaming the rich or the tories.
I agree with your sentiment about making those culperable for the economic downturn more responsible now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2010 19:32:03 GMT 1
"no, i didnt vote for them, but they have been doing their best to make sure they wont be around long, so thats something. "
They are going to fix that, though, by denying a simple majority vote of no confidence bringing the government down.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 9, 2010 19:49:32 GMT 1
You'd have to be very naive to think the OBR is independent, especially after the ludicrous spin it put on projected unemployment figures.
It is situated in the Treasury and its staff are on secondment from the Treasury.
And, unless my memory is failing, Alan Budd was a favourite of MrsT.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 9, 2010 20:48:42 GMT 1
Facts are we are here because of a failed Labour Government and we are where we are in no small way to the actions of that government. Ohhh lets blame the bankers...
If you don't like the Tories Marcus blame Labour for screwing up.
I am not and don't pretend to be wise or clever enough to dig us out of this mess.
What I do know is this, in battle you see the real strengths and weaknesses of people.
Those that can sustain will win through. The weaker will panic and scream then fall by the wayside by supporting the same old same old...time for change..
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 9, 2010 21:41:38 GMT 1
Projected unemployment figures did look optimistic, if not unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 9, 2010 21:42:10 GMT 1
Facts are we are here because of a failed Labour Government and we are where we are in no small way to the actions of that government. Ohhh lets blame the bankers... If you don't like the Tories Marcus blame Labour for screwing up. I am not and don't pretend to be wise or clever enough to dig us out of this mess. What I do know is this, in battle you see the real strengths and weaknesses of people. Those that can sustain will win through. The weaker will panic and scream then fall by the wayside by supporting the same old same old...time for change.. Fact free post. Confine this stuff to the battle field where it has relevance. In WindsorShrews world his dustman is paid a whopping £2m bonus even though 2 years later it's discovered he was dumping the rubbish in the river. Now the council has to tax WindsorShrew to clear up the mess. Of course this didn't happen. It's only in the profit-making world of real jobs where this happens.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 9, 2010 22:43:22 GMT 1
Without doubt Sean you have a better understanding of financial affairs than most on here.
However I have as much right as you to post and put a point across however weak in your esteemed eyes.
May I suggest you take your head out of your fat hairy arse understand that and stop being a show off - know it all belittler.
Then again you dont work in the city do you.
I'm going to log off now as I am upset and worried by you, it has nothing to do with the fact I am in London at 0900hrs tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by shrew4life on Jul 9, 2010 23:05:19 GMT 1
As of today I hate the tories. There scr@pping of the new schools has screwed over a lot of workers and companies of which I have felt the full brunt of! Same old same old with the toff gits. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer!
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 9, 2010 23:12:11 GMT 1
And yet you still didn't vote Marcus! If everyone voted in the next election who didn't this time and spoilt their ballot paper we might, just might, see some change instead of just sitting back and blaming the rich or the tories. I agree with your sentiment about making those culperable for the economic downturn more responsible now. but who would i vote for? the libdems looked the better option to me before the election but they are all part of the same system that is lax with the rich and tough with the poor under the line that "the talent will leave" or these big companies will dismiss the money they make from us and go somewhere else. its utter rubbish but the political industry and the upper portions of business move in the same circles, one palm greases another , they have a vested interest in looking after each other. every few years, something terrible happens in the banking or industrial sectors, and it is used as an excuse to grind more hours out of people for less money, whilst those that caused the mess dont suffer any consequence. probably because the people we depend on to represent us, are more interested in currying favour for kickbacks than actually trying to make the world fairer for those that actually do the work. the political system we have has developed into one that has no real idealogical difference between the parties. whoever you vote for, the govt always gets in, is an old addage that is at its truest at the moment. all our system does is divides people into groups loyal to one flag or other. it gives them something to do blame for the mess we are in, gives them an opposition to argue with on messageboards and pubs and more importantly it serves as a distraction from the fact that the same few people are making obscene amounts of money of the backs of everyone else. I'm not talking about millions but the billions made by the very small group of super rich people. i suppose what i am saying is that our governments serve industry not the electorate. you never see a poor politician, the top echelon always seem to end up working for one multinational oe another, and lets be honest, we all know why. the system is all wrong, i am happy to discuss it, but i dont want to take part.
|
|
|
Post by bananafeet on Jul 10, 2010 8:00:44 GMT 1
Yesterdays news that the Govenment are looking to scrap Primary Care Trusts and give Doctors their own budgets was about the most predictable bit of CONDEMism so far. The last Tory Government did this and Under "GP Fundholding" as it was called then GPs maraculously made savings each year (by prescribing cheaper inferior drugs and only referring Patients to Hospital practically as a last resort) and feathered their own nests via swanky accomodation refurbishments and unnecessary IT equipment. If you are planning on being Ill get it out of the way now because in 12 months time you'll be stuffed
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Jul 10, 2010 8:17:06 GMT 1
Yesterdays news that the Govenment are looking to scr@p Primary Care Trusts and give Doctors their own budgets was about the most predictable bit of CONDEMism so far. The last Tory Government did this and Under "GP Fundholding" as it was called then GPs maraculously made savings each year (by prescribing cheaper inferior drugs and only referring Patients to Hospital practically as a last resort) and feathered their own nests via sw**ky accomodation refurbishments and unnecessary IT equipment. If you are planning on being Ill get it out of the way now because in 12 months time you'll be stuffed [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img][/quote] on the other hand opinion polls show that we want less administrators in the NHS, and this is certainly one way to achieve this and the move to generic drugs prescribing was a key part of the Laboiur governments health policy too (less money for drug companies which cant be bad
|
|
|
Post by bananafeet on Jul 10, 2010 9:24:43 GMT 1
Yesterdays news that the Govenment are looking to scr@p Primary Care Trusts and give Doctors their own budgets was about the most predictable bit of CONDEMism so far. The last Tory Government did this and Under "GP Fundholding" as it was called then GPs maraculously made savings each year (by prescribing cheaper inferior drugs and only referring Patients to Hospital practically as a last resort) and feathered their own nests via sw**ky accomodation refurbishments and unnecessary IT equipment. If you are planning on being Ill get it out of the way now because in 12 months time you'll be stuffed [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img][/quote] on the other hand opinion polls show that we want less administrators in the NHS, and this is certainly one way to achieve this and the move to generic drugs prescribing was a key part of the Laboiur governments health policy too (less money for drug companies which cant be bad [/quote] It will lead to MORE administrators. In the 1990s each fund holding doctor had to employ A practice Manager, Deputy Practice Manager and even Assistant Practice managers, as well as an additional accountant and secretary - most of whom were very naieve in negotiating Healthcare Commissioning. Expect cosy lunches between drug company sales reps and doctors to re-emerge as a feature again too
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Jul 10, 2010 9:47:19 GMT 1
I'd rather have specialist adminstrators working in the care services than qualified medical staff spending large amounts of their time doing adminstration.
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Jul 10, 2010 9:56:51 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 10:01:11 GMT 1
[on the other hand opinion polls show that we want less administrators in the NHS, and this is certainly one way to achieve this and the move to generic drugs prescribing was a key part of the Laboiur governments health policy too (less money for drug companies which cant be bad nhs administrators are like whitehall mandarins, a colloquialism thats often wheeled out by the cons when they want to win support for cutting jobs. does anyone, without peeking, know what nhs administrators do? what type of jobs ect? cos it seems to me than unless you are in a position to understand someones role, its unfair and maybe unwise to judge. but that is exactly the tory plan (no point saying condem anymore because the libdems are no more than tory arse wipers, no more than political rent boys), they are using these evocative thrases, civil servants, whitehall mandarins, nhs administrators ect, to try and cover their tracks, justify their political, not financial ideology. "we can save a billion pound by cutting nhs administrators" "hooray" goes up the cry. next day the cheers arnt so loud when the p45s start plopping through the door. The issue isnt about numbers of administrators, its about the tories crushing one of the "thorn in their sides" institutions the strategic health authorities. its about ideology. these lot are very fond of giving us the old " doctors should be free to do what they do best" line. all the new plans will do is move the administrators from the SHA to an army of gp "trusts", same as they did in the early 90s with the hospital trusts. with gps syphoning off just enough to make things comfortable. so its nothing new, just the same old broken tory record thats been copied to a cd. Facts are we are here because of a failed Labour Government and we are where we are in no small way to the actions of that government. Ohhh lets blame the bankers..... yes lets all blame the bankers, even the government do. vince cable admitted it 2 weeks ago on the andrew marr show. im sure there is more Labour could have done, but im not sure what, but there are a lot of people to blame for the current problems, we have all been free and easy with our credit cards, cheap loans ect over the past 10 years. now its coming back to haunt us. whilst we are blaming the Labour government, can anyone tell me the last time we had 10 years of low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment? some of the more blinkered on here may be crying out for that in the next couple of years. Ever get the feeling you've been had? nope, i wasnt dumb enough to vote for the tories or libs dems. anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see it coming, no offence.
|
|
|
Post by barrynic on Jul 10, 2010 10:23:52 GMT 1
"whilst we are blaming the Labour government, can anyone tell me the last time we had 10 years of low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment? some of the more blinkered on here may be crying out for that in the next couple of years".
Thanks for reminding me Matron that Labour has destroyed my investment returns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 10:35:04 GMT 1
Thanks for reminding me Matron that Labour has destroyed my investment returns. oh so you wanted high interest rates?
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jul 10, 2010 10:41:25 GMT 1
Thanks for reminding me Matron that Labour has destroyed my investment returns. oh so you wanted high interest rates? My Parents do. Their income has been slashed by the low interest rates. What is good news for one person is bad news for another. It's like we get told the Private Sector do things far better and cheaper than the Public Sector, but so much of Public Sector waste is on contracts with the Private Sector, which don't perform.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 10, 2010 10:54:32 GMT 1
[on the other hand opinion polls show that we want less administrators in the NHS, and this is certainly one way to achieve this and the move to generic drugs prescribing was a key part of the Laboiur governments health policy too (less money for drug companies which cant be bad nhs administrators are like whitehall mandarins, a colloquialism thats often wheeled out by the cons when they want to win support for cutting jobs. does anyone, without peeking, know what nhs administrators do? what type of jobs ect? cos it seems to me than unless you are in a position to understand someones role, its unfair and maybe unwise to judge. but that is exactly the tory plan (no point saying condem anymore because the libdems are no more than tory arse wipers, no more than political rent boys), they are using these evocative thrases, civil servants, whitehall mandarins, nhs administrators ect, to try and cover their tracks, justify their political, not financial ideology. "we can save a billion pound by cutting nhs administrators" "hooray" goes up the cry. next day the cheers arnt so loud when the p45s start plopping through the door. The issue isnt about numbers of administrators, its about the tories crushing one of the "thorn in their sides" institutions the strategic health authorities. its about ideology. these lot are very fond of giving us the old " doctors should be free to do what they do best" line. all the new plans will do is move the administrators from the SHA to an army of gp "trusts", same as they did in the early 90s with the hospital trusts. with gps syphoning off just enough to make things comfortable. so its nothing new, just the same old broken tory record thats been copied to a cd. yes lets all blame the bankers, even the government do. vince cable admitted it 2 weeks ago on the andrew marr show. im sure there is more Labour could have done, but im not sure what, but there are a lot of people to blame for the current problems, we have all been free and easy with our credit cards, cheap loans ect over the past 10 years. now its coming back to haunt us. whilst we are blaming the Labour government, can anyone tell me the last time we had 10 years of low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment? some of the more blinkered on here may be crying out for that in the next couple of years. Ever get the feeling you've been had? nope, i wasnt dumb enough to vote for the tories or libs dems. anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see it coming, no offence. Have you any idea how annoying it is when I agree with you? This government is going to do the average working man no good whatsoever. Labour made a lot of mistakes and Blair was one person that I detested more than any other politian (even Maggie), but Brown dealt with the banking crisis as well if not better than anyone else would have. The point is I saw it coming and voted Labour, but unfortunately more people didn't and the Tories are in now for the foreseeable future and if they get their way there won't be a way to get shot of them even if the buttkissing liberals walk away from them. The good news is that the Tories will be unelectable for a generation if they keep going down the route they are at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 11:00:41 GMT 1
nope, i wasnt dumb enough to vote for the tories or libs dems. anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see it coming, no offence. Bloody hell Pab. Not dumb enough to vote for the Tories or Lib Dems? Maybe not but stupid enough to vote for an administration which took us to an illegal war in Iraq which has cost the nation hundreds of innocent lives. Fact is you'd have seen big cuts whether it was a Con Dem alliance, or any of the major three parties in control. Labour may be lefter than the Tories but they are a long way from what old Labour stood for.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jul 10, 2010 11:12:17 GMT 1
Thanks for reminding me Matron that Labour has destroyed my investment returns. oh so you wanted high interest rates? Yes please and stop blaming the rich
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 10, 2010 11:15:46 GMT 1
nope, i wasnt dumb enough to vote for the tories or libs dems. anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see it coming, no offence. Bloody hell Pab. Not dumb enough to vote for the Tories or Lib Dems? Maybe not but stupid enough to vote for an administration which took us to an illegal war in Iraq which has cost the nation hundreds of innocent lives. Fact is you'd have seen big cuts whether it was a Con Dem alliance, or any of the major three parties in control. Labour may be lefter than the Tories but they are a long way from what old Labour stood for. Correct. The cuts would be margianlly later under Labour, marginally smaller and over a marginally longer period. But its private debt - particularly the level of indebtedness in financial companies in the USA and UK plus the quality of assets held by these and European banks that is the problem. Debt deflation is the outcome. In america even the right wingers are seeing this: www.aei.org/outlook/100971
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 11:29:06 GMT 1
[ Bloody hell Pab. Not dumb enough to vote for the Tories or Lib Dems? Maybe not but stupid enough to vote for an administration which took us to an illegal war in Iraq which has cost the nation hundreds of innocent lives. Much as i enjoy your rare ventures into the world of B&A politics Ant, im struggling to see a connection between the discussion about economics and the war in iraq?Fact is you'd have seen big cuts whether it was a Con Dem alliance, or any of the major three parties in control. Fact is if Labour had won we would have had someone leading the country who knew something about how finance and world economics works. we wouldnt have had these cuts now whilst the economy is trying to grow its way out of recession, there may well have been a slightly fairer approach to the problem, rather than the whole thing being blamed on the public sector, and this being used as some thinly vailed excuse to do what the tories have always wanted regardless of the economic situation, namely to shut down the public sector and give it all to their rich buddies to tare apart, keep the good (profitable) bits and throw the rest on the scrap heap.Labour may be lefter than the Tories but they are a long way from what old Labour stood for. Indeed, but there is no appetite in this country anymore for "old Labour" politics. There is no traditional mass working class anymore so who would traditional Labour be appealing to with traditional Labour policies? the demographics of britain has changed beyond recognition in the past 30 - 40 years, if Labour hadnt changed its style, presentation and policies in the early 90s away from traditional Labour policy and ideoloy we would never have enjoyed the decade of stability we did under New Labour because no one would have voted for them except the die hard red blooded Labour supporters, and there is not enough of them to keep Labour in government.
|
|