March for the Alternative - London - Today

[-:Undertaker:-]

I must ask, why is everyone complaining about 'cuts' when government expenditure is actually increasing and is forecast to increase upto 2015? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...te-Labour.html A myth that plays well for both political parties, but don't let the truth get in the way!

however then there's announcements like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926 - which just absolutely takes the piss.

From my memory (and you can correct me if i'm wrong), when the MPs expenses scandal broke and showered the three main parties in slime (and rightly so), you were one of the ones who said something along the lines of 'well you can't blame them because most of us would do it aswell or they are only paid a small amount so its right that they should be able to do this'.

But whatever you said you still voted for it and will continue to vote for it.

[Chippiewill]

I must ask, why is everyone complaining about 'cuts' when government expenditure is actually increasing and is forecast to increase upto 2015?

But that's my entire problem with the conservatives, they're making cuts but not achieving anything by doing so.

[Inseriousity.]

No one mentioned execution? Yes, they have a right to protest but do they need to use it? No. Someone already said this, but the money that could be saved will have to be spent on clearing up their mess - so it is illogical? I think this sort of protesting is pointless. Yes - they express their unhappiness, but it won't change anything so what's the point?

I know no-one mentioned execution but it just beggars belief that there are countries out there where protestors are shot down and yet there are people in a more democratic society where protesting makes people say 'what's the point?' The point being they have every right to be there whether you disagree with them or not. Do they need to use it? No, they could stay at home and moan from their armchairs like the majority of this country seems to do or they have an agenda that they believe is worth fighting for and then act on it. Had they been fighting something you believe in, would you still be saying the same thing? I would imagine no and that's where my problem lies with the "What's the point?" brigade.

[Conservative,]

I know no-one mentioned execution but it just beggars belief that there are countries out there where protestors are shot down and yet there are people in a more democratic society where protesting makes people say 'what's the point?' The point being they have every right to be there whether you disagree with them or not. Do they need to use it? No, they could stay at home and moan from their armchairs like the majority of this country seems to do or they have an agenda that they believe is worth fighting for and then act on it. Had they been fighting something you believe in, would you still be saying the same thing? I would imagine no and that's where my problem lies with the "What's the point?" brigade.

It depends on whether I believed that anything could actually come from the action.

[StefanWolves]

I dont know where you get your info from but we arent going to be 'selling' one off and we arent going to be sharing one with the French. If anything the French will pay for us to build one/copy ours.

I think the MoD is one department where the cuts are appropriate. The actual department itself seems to be the problem with ridiculous salaries, pensions and of course the whole £9 lightbulb thing - These do of course need resolving.

However there has been rather a lot of frontline cuts, for instance many of the RAFs planes and Navy's ships have been scrapped early and we now have no aircraft carriers. In 2018 when two come into service, we'll be sharing one with the French and selling the other off. Aircraft orders also seem to be on hold and minimised whilst Trident has also been put on hold. And of course an awful lot of soldiers have been/will be laid off, many who are on active duty right now.

I'm not saying that their cuts have gone too far but we make very good use of our military, not long back they were stretched on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're still in Afghanistan and now there's fumbling around in Libya too. So far the forces seem to be coping okay with the cuts but who knows what will happen in the future. History might be very critical of Cameron for his military cuts. If they went any further I suspect they'd be in a lot of trouble, but if they were any less it would be disproportional with other department cuts.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do the pro-'cuts'/anti-'cuts' brigade of both sides on here have anything to say on this?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...et-for-growth/

And what of these savage cuts that the great unwashed are planning to waste more and more police time protesting against in the next few months? Well, as Fraser Nelson notes in the Spectator, they are small to non-existent:The “total cuts” figure is, oddly, not printed in the Budget. Perhaps because it’s so embarrassingly small. After the Autumn Statement, it was 5 per cent over four years. Now it’s back to 3.7 per cent over four years: that is to say, total cuts of just 0.9 per cent a year. The Chancellor’s cuts are mild — milder than Denis Healey’s now-forgotten cuts. Over the next five years, the spending total has risen: in 2014-15, we’ll be spending £744 billion, an extra £11 billion. A relatively small figure, but you get the overall direction. Remember this next time Ed Balls talks about “deep and fast” cuts.

0.9 per cent a year cuts whilst public expending increases year on year, so what are you all arguing about? Labour voters can now vote Tory and the Tory faithful can now vote Labour.. oh wait, its not about the facts I forgot, its about the red team vs the blue team. I always post these uncomfortable facts for both sides and they usually are ignored by both sides on this forum so this is now a challenge - so all of you posting from the sides of Tory vs Labour over whether its supposed NHS cuts, school cuts and so forth..

..does anybody want to reply to the figures rather than the rhetoric? anyone?

[Conservative,]

Do the pro-'cuts'/anti-'cuts' brigade of both sides on here have anything to say on this?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...et-for-growth/



0.9 per cent a year cuts whilst public expending increases year on year, so what are you all arguing about? Labour voters can now vote Tory and the Tory faithful can now vote Labour.. oh wait, its not about the facts I forgot, its about the red team vs the blue team. I always post these uncomfortable facts for both sides and they usually are ignored by both sides on this forum so this is now a challenge - so all of you posting from the sides of Tory vs Labour over whether its supposed NHS cuts, school cuts and so forth..

..does anybody want to reply to the figures rather than the rhetoric? anyone?

I honestly didn't look into the facts deeply before reading that but now I've seen that...wtf? I'm against Labour's policies but the coalition aren't doing any better atm :/

[FlyingJesus]

at the moment we have NO money.

Since 1750 there have only been two 30 year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. We went through the Industrial Revolution and owned an empire that covered about a quarter of the world with more debt than we currently have

I understand politics and economics.

obv

[beth]

Okay...lets do this then.

"The only people who will vote Labour (sorry if this offends anyone) are those who live on benefits and are upset because they're getting cut or those too stupid to realise that cuts have to be made otherwise our debt will grow."

YOU are uneducated. and i'm not even sorry if that gets me warned or whatever. my grandparents and my parents have ALWAYS voted labour and ALWAYS worked. and i vote labour and i paid more in taxes last year than you will probably pay in the next 5 years. you are quite obviously not mature enough to understand politics and hence make comments like this. the word LABOUR in itself means work, the "working man"'s party and even though thats not really their stance anymore, that is where their roots lie. the conservatives are actually making people STAY on benefits because if a single mother with a kid worked she'd be less able to support her family as she would be by staying on benefits.

i cannot even fathom your lack of intelligence if you think it's acceptable to make comments like that. i have no issue with people who vote conservative or lib dem, as long as they have brains and haven't just jumped on a right-wing hype. go read a book.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Since 1750 there have only been two 30 year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. We went through the Industrial Revolution and owned an empire that covered about a quarter of the world with more debt than we currently have

Indeed, an Empire that generated profits backed by a strong home economy of which we no longer have either.

Any examples of public spending out of control, people need to look back to Britain itself in 1979 when we had to go cap in hand to the IMF, Greece and Ireland now and Portugal/possibly Spain and Belgium next.

YOU are uneducated. and i'm not even sorry if that gets me warned or whatever. my grandparents and my parents have ALWAYS voted labour and ALWAYS worked. and i vote labour and i paid more in taxes last year than you will probably pay in the next 5 years. you are quite obviously not mature enough to understand politics and hence make comments like this. the word LABOUR in itself means work, the "working man"'s party and even though thats not really their stance anymore, that is where their roots lie. the conservatives are actually making people STAY on benefits because if a single mother with a kid worked she'd be less able to support her family as she would be by staying on benefits.

i cannot even fathom your lack of intelligence if you think it's acceptable to make comments like that. i have no issue with people who vote conservative or lib dem, as long as they have brains and haven't just jumped on a right-wing hype. go read a book.

Why should the state pay for an unmarried mother in terms of benefits? would it not be better to not tax the woman in the first place or indeed tax her less so she is allowed to keep the profits of her work? why is this idea of 'benefits' which are essentially our own money just repackaged not challenged? people need to get the idea of 'government money' out of their heads, there is no such thing.

What do you make of the statistics I posted anyway? surely you would be inclined to vote Conservative now that i've posted those figures.