March for the Alternative - London - Today

[beth]

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.



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.

i didn't say she were right to stay on benefits, i'm just basing that on the financial situation she would be. and it's right, and i am NOT saying this morality is right (i would work whatever, regardless) but why would someone work when they can get more money from the "state".

and no, i would never be inclined to vote conservative. .

[-:Undertaker:-]

i didn't say she were right to stay on benefits, i'm just basing that on the financial situation she would be. and it's right, and i am NOT saying this morality is right (i would work whatever, regardless) but why would someone work when they can get more money from the "state".

Then we agree on that one, so why not vote for a party which stands for that rather than a party which stands for the opposite (ie, more benefits/the status quo)? the reason Conservative referred to that is because its true, many turkeys will not vote for christmas which would mean the removal of their benefits. The Labour Party relies very heavily on the poorer areas by offering them bribes of their own money in return for voting Labour.

The same now applies to the Conservative Party which has accepted the doctrine of Labour.

and no, i would never be inclined to vote conservative. .

But you support Labour I take it from your posts? again, i'm just highlighting the fact that both main parties are the exact same in almost every policy area and that both parties agree with one another and want to be eachother - now fair play if you agree with what they do during their period in government as Rosie and so on I know do whereas I find them utterly incompetent and corrupt. But what i'm getting at is tribalism, the fact that when the blue team (or the red team when its the other way around) do exactly the same as the previous administration, theres an outrage about it when there wasn't during the period in office of the 'home team'. A great quote in relation to this topic and its quite fitting; 'you can't reason a man out of a position he never reasoned himself into'.

The debt example that i've posted, earlier on in this thread both sides were at eachothers necks, arguing over what was nothing but cheap talk and rhetoric from both sides eager to make political advantage out of these so-called cuts - now that i've posted whats really going in, which is the opposite to what both sides were arguing about - nobody has anything to say on it, not a word. Yet in May they'll go out and vote for the same parties which are fooling them into believing these 'cuts' (if you can call them that) are somehow harsh.

[Jordy]

How are they not cuts if public sector borrowing is going down..?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/News...11/DG_WP195492

Admittedly I'd like them to go faster but that's another issue, significant cuts are being made and statistics show that. It's something like 20% off each department.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...ter-cuts.thtml

3.7% 'cuts' over four years while public spending continues unchecked, not to mention the money we are throwing down the plughole in debt interest.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are playing this issue up when, in reality, there's no serious disagreement between them both on this issue.

How are they not cuts if public sector borrowing is going down..?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/News...11/DG_WP195492

Admittedly I'd like them to go faster but that's another issue, significant cuts are being made and statistics show that. It's something like 20% off each department.

Because the public sector and government expenditure are still due to grow (see above) hence why they were left out of the budget, if they were serious then public expenditure would be slashed (as many think it needs to be as government is involved in far too many areas) and taxes would thus be decreased, leaving the economy the space to grow and thus pay off the debts. A £7.9tn debt and growing, yet this government is still increasing expenditure and is talking about 0.9% cuts per year - utterly ridiculous.

..and the Tories aren't exactly clean of this mess themselves, they supported Labours spending plans right upto 2008.

[alexxxxx]

there are cuts in spending as the figures youve quoted are non-inflation based, so spending goes up, yet inflation is larger than the spending increase, leading to an overall cut in spending.

plus 'cuts' doesn't have to mean overall cut to the budget. people are losing their jobs and services are being cut. that is a fact.

[-:Undertaker:-]

there are cuts in spending as the figures youve quoted are non-inflation based, so spending goes up, yet inflation is larger than the spending increase, leading to an overall cut in spending.

plus 'cuts' doesn't have to mean overall cut to the budget. people are losing their jobs and services are being cut. that is a fact.

This is just to break down the deficit (provided you trust government figures, which, as i've pointed out - leave out the actual pitiful numbers of these 'cut's), it doesn't even put a dint in the debt of which we already spend more on the interest of that debt than we do of the entire education/military budgets - small 'cuts' to frontline serves when there should be severe cuts to the bureaucracy, EU contributions, foreign aid, Whitehall, reigning in MoD spending, quangos in general and government having its nose poked in where it should not have it.

The councils laid off many people during the supposed 'good times' regardless, so they can spend the money on all sorts of ridiculous job posts that you can usually find under jobs in the Guardian - councils aren't interested anymore in maintaining parks, keeping the streets tidy because nowadays its all about 'diversity classes', 'diversity officer', 'gay and lesbian manager' - we've heard endless examples of this. The mantra of 'the cuts' are a perfect way to lay off more genuine people (teachers, street cleaners etc) along with scoring political points.

There was a video with the Manchester council leader I think it was, and he was complaining about these cuts telling us all how he has had to lay people off - Andrew Neil then brought up a number of examples such as the ones I just have and the guy was caught out playing politics. Edit- Here we go;

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.

Next, Osborne has back-shifted a lot of the pain. Originally, total spending was going to be down 1.7 per cent this year. Now, it's just 0.6 per cent. This is in the margin of error so it can be said that there are, in effect, no cuts in total spending this year. Pain has been shifted to the end — so the tax burden for 2015-16 has been revised up by £335 million. But this would be the first year of the next government.

The idea that this government is implementing savage cuts in order to get the debt down is complete wish wash, the Tories rely on their support by playing this out to be a fact - as do Labour who enjoy playing it out as a good old fashioned 'Tory cuts' story in order to keep their voters happy. As I said earlier, the Tories supported the spending plans of Labour right upto 2008 so this isn't suprising.

Borrowing

Public sector net borrowing was £146 billion this year. It will be:

• £122 billion next year
• £101 billion in 2012-13
• £70 billion in 2013-14
• £46 billion in 2014-15
• £29 billion in 2015-16

Jordy posted the above government forecasts for spending, are these figures supposed to impress me? so we're still going deeper into debt, just at a slightly *projected* slower rate - of which you can never trust government projections anyway, as the books are well and truly cooked.

[alexxxxx]

Jordy posted the above government forecasts for spending, are these figures supposed to impress me? so we're still going deeper into debt, just at a slightly *projected* slower rate - of which you can never trust government projections anyway, as the books are well and truly cooked.

The state of the councils are a joke Dan. You obviously know very few people who work in the public sector (or in local councils) and everyone is petrified for their jobs. 'Diversity Managers' etc and the like are to some people non-jobs but the issue is that every job that isn't a core service is at risk. My dad's job, my friends' parents' jobs.

You cannot just slash billions of pounds worth of spending in one go, it would be a total disaster for the economy in the medium term, let alone the social cost.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The state of the councils are a joke Dan. You obviously know very few people who work in the public sector (or in local councils) and everyone is petrified for their jobs. 'Diversity Managers' etc and the like are to some people non-jobs but the issue is that every job that isn't a core service is at risk. My dad's job, my friends' parents' jobs.

You cannot just slash billions of pounds worth of spending in one go, it would be a total disaster for the economy in the medium term, let alone the social cost.

I know the councils and government in general are a joke hence why I do not trust them in the slightest. The video above pretty much proves that - what needs to happen is that useless jobs and layers of management such as diversity managers and the such should be instantly scrapped - sad for the people who occupy them, but blame the last administration which created them in the first place when we never wanted the, nor were they needed.

Even if we did this though, the public sector is still too large for what the private sector can handle - taxes and regulation must be slashed back in order to get the private sector to outpace the public sector, and we would then stage job layoffs in stages so that the private sector can pick it up. We talk about fairness - the private sector hasn't had it fair at all, they've paid in jobs over the past two decades thanks to over-taxation and over-regulation. Of course to tackle these, especially number two, it boils back to the issue of our membership of the European Union.

You cannot just slash billions of pounds worth of spending in one go, it would be a total disaster for the economy in the medium term, let alone the social cost.

Spending in the real economy (the private sector) is the only solution, the disaster we face now is because we are doing exactly what you propose we do right now - which is continue government spending at a uncontrolled rate, and where does govt money come from? the private sector.

Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[alexxxxx]

I know the councils and government in general are a joke hence why I do not trust them in the slightest. The video above pretty much proves that - what needs to happen is that useless jobs and layers of management such as diversity managers and the such should be instantly scrapped - sad for the people who occupy them, but blame the last administration which created them in the first place when we never wanted the, nor were they needed.

Councils are not staffed by thousands of diversity managers.

Even if we did this though, the public sector is still too large for what the private sector can handle - taxes and regulation must be slashed back in order to get the private sector to outpace the public sector, and we would then stage job layoffs in stages so that the private sector can pick it up. We talk about fairness - the private sector hasn't had it fair at all, they've paid in jobs over the past two decades thanks to over-taxation and over-regulation. Of course to tackle these, especially number two, it boils back to the issue of our membership of the European Union.

This is all ideological - none of what you have said is actual fact.

Spending in the real economy (the private sector) is the only solution, the disaster we face now is because we are doing exactly what you propose we do right now - which is continue government spending at a uncontrolled rate, and where does govt money come from? the private sector.

Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Do the families of public sector workers eat food which comes out of nowhere or do they spend every penny in the private sector. This 'real economy' rubbish you come out with every time you have an argument is an ideological term. When the government spends money, the money is used in private sector businesses and increases output and employs people. Cutting spending in the public sector without any increase in the private sector cuts the GDP.

[Niall!]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...-uncut-fortnum

Yeah, that's just not on. At all.