Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[britboy4321]

So scrapping ID cards will cause a double dip ?

Scrapping child trust funds for better off families will wreck their finances and stop them spending ?

Every little helps.

167 billion this year and a total national debt of heading for a trillion Pounds suggests cuts and efficiency savings are needed and now rather than in two years when it is quite possible that the UKs AAA rating is no more and the cost of borrowing costs more.

No-one knows what might or might not cause a double-dip.


Think of a roulette wheel. If it hits 'green' we've got a double dip.

Well scrapping child welfare funds (and taking the money out of the economy) just changes one 'red' to green.

Scrapping ID cards (and taking that money out of the economy) just changes another 'red' to green.


You see it's not like the money is being put into the economy elsewhere. This is literally taking money out of someone's back pocket that WAS going to buy a pint with it. So the pub doesn't sell the pint. So the landlord doesn't buy bananas that week. So the greengrocer can't quite afford to have his garden turfed, so the gardnener can't afford to buy a pint next week, so the pub shuts altogether etc!

If keeping the money borrowed costs us 5% of it in interest, but keeping it will make the economy grow by an estimated 8%, really, it's a no brainer.

Think of it this way: Its EXACTLY like if you personally can borrow money at 5% and put it in a savings account paying 8%. Me personally, I'd borrow £6m if I could (in fact, I'd borrow £60m if I could) - wouldn't you? (and ignore people that keep saying 'OMG Britboy you're £60m in debt, that's unbelievably bad you should reduce it - as those people don't understand how much the money is worth to you, they are just thinking '£60m is debt sounds awful so it should be reduced! Simple thinking! And awfully annoying when Cameron says 'Everyone that runs a family budget knows that being in debt is a bad thing but Labour don't seem to have grasped that simple economic principle'. Eugh! He KNOWS he's not saying the truth, he's misleading the thicko's, that debt is always worth having if you can make more money off in than the interest, but he still does says it as the thicko masses are, er, thick!. Grr! It grinds my gears!

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Then why are all 3 main parties in agreement on one thing in that spending must be cut even if they can't agree on what must be cut ?

 

[britboy4321]

Then why are all 3 main parties in agreement on one thing in that spending must be cut even if they can't agree on what must be cut ?

Because at some point in the future cutting the debt will save us more money (in interest) than we can make from keeping the money borrowed, ie. When the economy is on the rise again. The only question is when.

The tories argue that NOW is the time to start giving money back, basically that keeping money IN the economy isn't worth the 5% interest rate to us, that the economy can do just fine without that extra money floating around. Basically they argue now is the time to start making businesses suffer big-time. And if they go under and all the employees lose their jobs (so therefore can't spend their wages at other businesses etc), tough (and enjoy the smaller unemployment benefits of course, they need to reduce them to give a tax-break to people earning > £200,000 per year! (lol? You probably think I'm joking!) Welcome to the wonderful world of right-wing conservatism. It's great eh!).

Labour argue that if we take money out of the economy now, when it's at, like, 0.1% growth, and therefore we may well force a double-dip recession, it will cost BILLIONS MORE that the small amount of money we save from paying off some of the debt. And it's not worth the risk for a while, business are struggling enough .. but at some point or other in the future when businesses are much healthier we CAN take some money out of the economy, most importantly the businesses survive (so you keep your job and keep spending your wages, helping other businesses), and the debt starts reducing.

 

[Dolph]

I don't think just as we leave recession we should be cutting government spending into the economy, as to do so risks a 'double-dip' recession as to put it simply less people will have money to spend at our businesses.

I also don't think the tories know where government spending inefficiencies are (If they do why would they keep it a secret? How would they know something that the current government doesn't?), so they will actually just say to the department boss .. 'er, make it more efficient, we're reducing your budget by 20%', the dept. boss will just reduce the level of service by 20%, as happened with the last tory government..

Well done, you've highlighted why force funded monopolies are structurally flawed and in urgent need of reform...

I don't think anyone really believes the tories have discovered some secret elixir of government waste, and can reduce the cost without affecting the service. The trouble for the tories is that unfortunately no-one else (about the age of 28) believes it either. We've been here before. Funny enough they reduce government spending, and the service gets worse. Simples!

Do you instead advocate that identified government wastage should not be cut (as Labour do)?

Should we continue expanding the debt for no purpose whatsoever.

 

[britboy4321]

Do you instead advocate that identified government wastage should not be cut (as Labour do)?

Should we continue expanding the debt for no purpose whatsoever.

Eugh. Not worthy of response. Talk to someone else.

 

[Dolph]

Eugh. Not worthy of response. Talk to someone else.

Or in other words, yes you do, and you can't defend it.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[britboy4321]

Or in other words, yes you do, and you can't defend it.

Thanks for clearing it up.

What's to be gained from lying on this board?

I mean what's the point? What's the benefit? I seriously don't understand. You know the truth, I know the truth, I know that you know about labours policy on government wastage! Why lie? 'Increase the debt for no benefit whatever'? I can only presume you're very, very young when you say such things. I'll say this as simply as I can, last try: You can BUY things with borrowed money. But of course you knew this. :\ seriously - read your comments back to yourself .. arn't you at all interested in what is actually going on in the world around you?

Your comments are honestly like me saying 'Dolph, what do you think of the fact Cameron eats kittens whilst they are still alive'?

I mean - simply - why bother? Is it just to stop the debate? Why don't you go to a different thread if you just want to post rubbish, I mean, seriously .. I don't see what's to be gained. Some form of trolling? Why bother posting ..?

 

[Dolph]

What's to be gained from lying on this board?

I mean what's the point? What's the benefit? I seriously don't understand. You know the truth, I know the truth, I know that you know about labours policy on government wastage! Why lie? 'Increase the debt for no benefit'? I can only presume you're very, very young when you say such thing :\ seriously - read them back to yourself ..

It's like me saying 'Dolph, what do you think of the fact Cameron eats kittens whilst they are still alive'?

I mean - simply - why bother? Is it just to stop the debate?

What benefit is there in not cutting identified unnecessary and wasteful spending when it is funded by debt?

This is a serious question.

 

[dangerstat]

Do you instead advocate that identified government wastage should not be cut (as Labour do)?

Should we continue expanding the debt for no purpose whatsoever.

It's obvious why Labour are taking that route, when you to fire 20% of civil servants the first thing that happens is you instantly remove £2 billion/year from the economy and increase the deficit by 200 million. Then you increase the "dole" payment bill by at least 1 billion a year.

Then the real impact, the remaining 400,000 civil servents reduce there expenditure by fear of losing their jobs, and lets say modestly reduce their expenditure by 10% (realistic IMO). That takes another 800 million per year out of the economy.

So the conservatives master plan to help the economy during this recovery is to take throughly £3 billion out of the UK's economy, and increase the deficit by increase the deficit further by 1.2 billion. Yeah really clever that isn't it!

 

[Dolph]

It's obvious why Labour are taking that route, when you to fire 20% of civil servants the first thing that happens is you instantly remove £2 billion/year from the economy and increase the deficit by 200 million. Then you increase the "dole" payment bill by at least 1 billion a year.

The cost of dole payments is more than offset by the reduction in costs from no longer paying staff

You are effectively advocating a 'hyperdole' setup.

Then the real impact, the remaining 400,000 civil servents reduce there expenditure by fear of losing their jobs, and lets say modestly reduce their expenditure by 10% (realistic IMO). That takes another 800 million per year out of the economy.

Citation needed.

So the conservatives master plan to help the economy during this recovery is to take throughly £3 billion out of the UK's economy, and increase the deficit by increase the deficit further by 1.2 billion. Yeah really clever that isn't it!

Citation needed.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

britboy thinks money grows on trees, and that we don't pay increasing interest rates on our borrowings.

 

[britboy4321]

britboy thinks money grows on trees, and that we don't pay increasing interest rates on our borrowings.

Prove that I think money goes on trees.

Or was it just another Hatter 'factoid'?

 

[Dolph]

Prove that I think money goes on trees.

Or was it just another Hatter 'factoid'?

The fact that you support spending it like there are no limits? Or that you think all government spending provides a benefit to the economy?

 

[dangerstat]

Citation needed.

Dolph the sums are simple on this, and I'm being very very much on the optimistic side. There's roughly 500 million civil servants http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/statistics/index.aspx. I've worked on an average salary of 20k (which is probably lower than it is in reality) if they stop spending 10% of their gross salary that is £800,000,000. To be honest it's likely to be higher than 10% if people fear immediate redundancy. On top of that the civil service have excellent redundancy terms which means firing civil servants is very very expensive which is where the 200,000,000 comes from ( giving 20% of civil servents on average a £2000 redundancy payment - in reality it would be double if not more than this).

You're right when you say the cost to the government is lower by sacking 20% of the civil service and then giving them dole payouts - BUT you can not as efficiently inject that much money back into the economy. The basic reason is economics 101, when you give "the population" X amount more money in say tax cuts they save a certain percentage and spend a certain percentage.

No matter how I look at it, right now making those types of cuts to the civil service makes no sense. A few years down the line with a stronger economy and a decent job market possibly.

 

[James J]

The tories have some rather stupid "policy" idea's at the moment, just like this one

"Too many new cancer drugs turned down, Tories say"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8601298.stm

They quite clearly haven't got a clue when it comes to how pharmaceutical companies actually work, nor the NHS when it comes to actually prescribing, buying and evaluating the use of cancer drugs nation wide. I'd also love to know how they are going to divide up the 200 million they have alloted for this as well which is literally nothing when you look at the prices of cancer drugs, their shelf lives and overall clinical usefulness in cases.

"The Tories said they were not criticising individual decisions made by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), but wanted to see a shift in the balance of decisions. " Commonly known as "we want to appear to be helping people who have cancer but we don't dare question NICE, so instead try go around it instead".

plus

But the chief executive of NICE, Sir Andrew Dillon, said it was wrong to recommend the use of treatments "where the additional benefit is uncertain".

"Not all patients with a particular condition benefit from a drug and some drugs only work really well for some patients or at a particular stage in a disease," he said.

Basically the tories bang on about efficiency saving but then want to waste 200million of potential NI savings in a scheme that is fundamentaly flawed from the ground up. Good job Cameron

 

[Dolph]

Dolph the sums are simple on this, and I'm being very very much on the optimistic side. There's roughly 500 million civil servants http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/statistics/index.aspx. I've worked on an average salary of 20k (which is probably lower than it is in reality) if they stop spending 10% of their gross salary that is £800,000,000. To be honest it's likely to be higher than 10% if people fear immediate redundancy. On top of that the civil service have excellent redundancy terms which means firing civil servants is very very expensive which is where the 200,000,000 comes from ( giving 20% of civil servents on average a £2000 redundancy payment - in reality it would be double if not more than this).

How are there 500 million civil servants in the UK? Perhaps you need to go back and think about this again...

You're right when you say the cost to the government is lower by sacking 20% of the civil service and then giving them dole payouts - BUT you can not as efficiently inject that much money back into the economy. The basic reason is economics 101, when you give "the population" X amount more money in say tax cuts they save a certain percentage and spend a certain percentage.

You absolutely can. There is virtually no GDP mulitplier on civil service work, as opposed to putting money into the economy through infrastructure investment or military spending...

No matter how I look at it, right now making those types of cuts to the civil service makes no sense. A few years down the line with a stronger economy and a decent job market possibly.

Making these cuts has to happen, because the job market will grow through innovation, and that doesn't happen without motivation. (See the 1980s for examples).

Will it be hard? Yes it will. Will unemployment rise? Yes, it will.

You also forget that Labour are proposing similar cuts, just after another year of additional wastage.

 

[James J]

edit bah didnt see the typo, *gets down from the horse*

 

[dangerstat]

How are there 500 million civil servants in the UK? Perhaps you need to go back and think about this again...

Sorry Dolph I meant 500 thousand Sums are based on that number was a slip of the tongue saying 500 million

You absolutely can. There is virtually no GDP mulitplier on civil service work, as opposed to putting money into the economy through infrastructure investment or military spending...

I completely disagree. If you put the money in the hands of private contractors (as you would for example with infrastructure projects) you will actually be paying more on average for the service, and putting a considerable amount of the money into "fat cats". So for example on military expenditure if you got say BAE to do something the DSTL are doing you'll pay more for it and the people that will actually be pocketing the extra will be senior BAE managers / shareholders.

Making these cuts has to happen, because the job market will grow through innovation, and that doesn't happen without motivation. (See the 1980s for examples).

Will it be hard? Yes it will. Will unemployment rise? Yes, it will.

You also forget that Labour are proposing similar cuts, just after another year of additional wastage.

I think cutting waste is one thing, and in general I'm a supporter of this. However cutting numbers right now is not a smart move. Like I say I think if we where in a position where we had a strong job market then it could cope with an influx of 100 thousand workers in one foul swoop then it'd be another matter.

 

[Dolph]

Sorry Dolph I meant 500 thousand Sums are based on that number was a slip of the tongue saying 500 million

Fair enough I still disagree with your analysis mind.

I completely disagree. If you put the money in the hands of private contractors (as you would for example with infrastructure projects) you will actually be paying more on average for the service, and putting a considerable amount of the money into "fat cats". So for example on military expenditure if you got say BAE to do something the DSTL are doing you'll pay more for it and the people that will actually be pocketing the extra will be senior BAE managers / shareholders.

You were the one who cited economics 101... I'm guessing fiscal multipliers must be in economics 102

I think cutting waste is one thing, and in general I'm a supporter of this. However cutting numbers right now is not a smart move. Like I say I think if we where in a position where we had a strong job market then it could cope with an influx of 100 thousand workers in one foul swoop then it'd be another matter.

The problem is we won't achieve a strong market without addressing the debt and deficit burden on the UK economy. Indeed at the rate it's going, that's what is going to cost us our AAA credit rating...

The real issue can be traced to irresponsible government spending during the last 13 years. The question becomes do we address this mistake, or perpetuate it...

 

[dangerstat]

You were the one who cited economics 101... I'm guessing fiscal multipliers must be in economics 102

I apologize it's been a few years since I graduated.

The problem is we won't achieve a strong market without addressing the debt and deficit burden on the UK economy. Indeed at the rate it's going, that's what is going to cost us our AAA credit rating...

The real issue can be traced to irresponsible government spending during the last 13 years. The question becomes do we address this mistake, or perpetuate it...

I don't disagree with you on the problem being excessive government spending. I do disagree with how you adjust that expenditure whilst keeping the economy going. I honestly think that cutting now, will push us back into a recession.

In reality the size of the civil service hasn't "exploded" as the conservatives would have you believe. It's actually been the stable. There's about the same number at the start of the Labour victories till now