Anyone who voted Tory last month needs to be ashamed of themselves. Seriously. And there should be immediate by-elections in every Lib Dem constituency, because all those people have got the complete opposite of what they voted for. How can anyone defend a huge VAT rise which hits the poorest hardest, and cutting benefits for the least-well-off?

 

The only consolation is that they'll be definitely out within 5 years, and probably within two years. But only after there's been huge damage inflicted on the economy and on the welfare of real people's lives.

I'm still in shock. I knew cuts would be made but I didn't think the Tories would have the chutzpah to go for something as outrageous as 25% cuts to all departments (minus NHS and foreign aid) :mellow:

I don't know if Labour are going to get a Blair-style landslide, because no doubt there are a lot of selfish twats in wealthy southern England constituencies who don't give a $h!t about the poor will continue to support the Tories. But I'm almost certain London, northern England, Scotland, Wales and most importantly the Midlands - which ALWAYS decides elections - will rally round Labour, meaning they're practically guaranteed to win the next election. At this point I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Clegg is ousted from his Sheffield seat - and good riddance to him it would be.

Btw, this whole Budget which was designed to appease the markets and convince them we'll cut the deficit has resulted in... the pound closing down in trading and the FTSE 100 down 2%. SMH

Edited June 22, 201015 yr by Danny

I don't know if Labour are going to get a Blair-style landslide, because no doubt there are a lot of selfish twats in wealthy southern England constituencies who don't give a $h!t about the poor will continue to support the Tories. But I'm almost certain London, northern England, Scotland, Wales and most importantly the Midlands - which ALWAYS decides elections - will rally round Labour, meaning they're practically guaranteed to win the next election. At this point I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Clegg is ousted from his Sheffield seat - and good riddance to him it would be.

These are the selfish twats which voted Tory anyway in 1997! :lol:

well one new development we had since the coalition won was the debt downgrade of Greece and potential downgrade of other countries. This is huge news and often overlooked; we could not wait another 6 months or so to cut debt and provide a clear path of deficit reduction or Fitch and other rating agencies would cut out credit rating!! This would mean we pay much more on our ever increasing debt and see foreign investment leave the country. So we had to act now, if people at least agree with this then the rest is easier to understand.

 

The increase in the lower tax band offsets any VAT increases for low earners and the welfare system needed to be reformed. We had people with 8 kids living in a house claiming crazy amounts / year in housing benefit. A cap on this is an excellent idea. Other benefits, I dont see the problem in forcing people into work. If you cant work then now you have to PROVE it, a la disability allowances. We also need to stop people from other European nations using our welfare system for their own advantages, not sure if this was in the budget but it should be! On the flip side they had to drive the economy hence the cuts in corporation tax (headline + small business).

 

Can people be explicit about what they don't like and then we can have a discussion...

George Osbourne has done fantastically well with that budget, in redressing the balance between the private and public sectors and cutting the obscene welfare state. The only major criticism I have is that Health spending should be cut by 25% in real terms over the next four years too, with more emphasis on private healthcare solutions.

 

This country is going to be amazing after >10 years of (conservative) libertarianism... ^_^

 

oh to be young and naive.....

 

 

Yeah, for selfish cunts like you who can afford it maybe. Emphasis on PRIVATE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS? You do realise the vast majority of people can't fucking afford private healthcare?

 

>10 years? Just you watch. The Tories are OUT next election in a landslide Labour victory, providing Labour choose the right leader. Margaret Thatcher only managed to get away with less thanks to Labour imploding and the Falklands.

 

yeah but theyll blame labour anyway...and they might be right to do so..

 

10 years? ill be surprised if they last ten months. people know that theres huge debts to pay back but no one accepts that its THEM who have to pay.

:drama: I hate the generalisation that middle/upper-class people don't care about the poor.

 

Some of us DO care </3.

George Osbourne has done fantastically well with that budget

This country is going to be amazing after >10 years of (conservative) libertarianism... ^_^

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Rob - is this naive... or just plain stupid? After that unintentionally hilarious post, I'm edging toward the latter myself....

well one new development we had since the coalition won was the debt downgrade of Greece and potential downgrade of other countries. This is huge news and often overlooked; we could not wait another 6 months or so to cut debt and provide a clear path of deficit reduction or Fitch and other rating agencies would cut out credit rating!! This would mean we pay much more on our ever increasing debt and see foreign investment leave the country. So we had to act now, if people at least agree with this then the rest is easier to understand.

 

The increase in the lower tax band offsets any VAT increases for low earners and the welfare system needed to be reformed. We had people with 8 kids living in a house claiming crazy amounts / year in housing benefit. A cap on this is an excellent idea. Other benefits, I dont see the problem in forcing people into work. If you cant work then now you have to PROVE it, a la disability allowances. We also need to stop people from other European nations using our welfare system for their own advantages, not sure if this was in the budget but it should be! On the flip side they had to drive the economy hence the cuts in corporation tax (headline + small business).

 

Can people be explicit about what they don't like and then we can have a discussion...

Spain's credit rating was downgraded as a result of their cuts though, due to 'reduced growth projections'. Greece were downgraded mainly because their debt was made up of short-term loans and covered 113% of their GDP!

 

On the contrary, it's been calculated that the VAT increases have offsetted the increase in the lower tax band for the majority out of it!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Rob - is this naive... or just plain stupid? After that unintentionally hilarious post, I'm edging toward the latter myself....

Did you see his ridiculous manifesto in the cuts thread? You'd think Ethan used the Daily Telegraph as wank fodder...

:drama: I hate the generalisation that middle/upper-class people don't care about the poor.

 

Some of us DO care </3.

 

Indeed, some do. But sadly, it seems the majority don't.

 

 

 

Get ready for a Thisispop-style essay...

 

 

well one new development we had since the coalition won was the debt downgrade of Greece and potential downgrade of other countries. This is huge news and often overlooked; we could not wait another 6 months or so to cut debt and provide a clear path of deficit reduction or Fitch and other rating agencies would cut out credit rating!! This would mean we pay much more on our ever increasing debt and see foreign investment leave the country. So we had to act now, if people at least agree with this then the rest is easier to understand.

 

There's more important things than being downgraded by a credit agency. History shows us that when all nations in the world cut at once, you get a Depression. Also, when Japan went through their credit crunch in the 90s, they then pulled the economic support too early, and unveiled a Budget very similar to Osborne's... and ended up tipping the economy back into recession. Economic history is a much more sound and tangible basis to structure arguments on than speculative worries about what credit agencies and markets might do next week - who, again, did not foresee the global recession in the first place, unlike David Blanchflower, who DID foresee the recession, and now thinks that cuts will bring about a Depression.

 

So no, I don't agree we had to "act now", insofar as what you mean by "act now". I believe there should've been mild public spending cuts (pay freezes for the TOP public-sector earners; scrapping child benefits for the well-off; scrapping prison sentences of less than six months, like Ken Clarke has suggested, and consequentely scrap the £1bn prison-building programme; scrapping Trident), and a staged increase in income tax (1p on basic incomes, 2p on middle incomes, 3p on highest incomes), which would raise about £15bn. But if "acting now" means cutting jobs, making it harder for middle-to-poor to make ends meet, and hitting the very most vulnerable severely, then no, I don't think we should "act now".

 

 

The increase in the lower tax band offsets any VAT increases for low earners

BBC figures showed this to be wholly not the case.

 

 

I dont see the problem in forcing people into work

And how exactly do you think these people being "forced to work" are going to be able to FIND work, when the government is cutting public-sector jobs and when private firms aren't opening new jobs? Also, you do realise that anyone who's claiming standard unemployment benefit needs to provide proof that they're applying to 3 jobs a week, right?

 

 

If you cant work then now you have to PROVE it, a la disability allowances.

You realise they have to PROVE it now? Do you really think that someone can just phone up the Job Centre and say they're disabled, and that they're then immediately given money every week forevermore without any questions or medical assessments? If you really believe that then I don't know what to tell you.

 

 

Can people be explicit about what they don't like and then we can have a discussion...

The fact that ALL govt depts apart from Health are being told to lay off massive numbers of staff when there's already a dire jobs shortage, meaning I and all other young people will have a hell of a struggle for atleast 10 years to find proper work; the fact that VAT will increase household prices enormously; the fact that benefits are going to be cut, meaning the poorest will continue to fall further behind the rest and make British society even more unequal (when it's already one of the most unequal in the Western hemisphere); the injustice that the poor and the public sector are having to pay most of the cost of a crisis that was caused by the banks, private sector and very rich; the fact that it will jeopardise the economic recovery. That enough?

 

Also, Robert Peston (who of course was probably the most respected economics/business commentator in Britain at the height of the financial crisis) went as far as he could within the BBC's neutrality laws to call the government idiots for their Budget on tonight's 10:00 News. And Newsnight's economics editor said "in 4 years, I'll either be standing here reflecting on a German/Chinese-style miracle for the British export industry... or I'll be reflecting on an economy potentially in ruins." Considering Britain has simply NOTHING to export, and that in any case, our main trading partners (the EU) are also slashing spending so won't be able to import much, I know which scenario my money's on.

 

Oh, and I've also just read that the government's key ally is Mervyn King, who has said that, even if the government's proposals fail, the plan B is that the Bank of England "won't let us fail". Because the BoE did a great job of staving off that banking meltdown and subsequent recession didn't they? But I guess the right-wing idiots are going to carry on ignoring the people who actually FORESAW THE RECESSION, and instead are going to keep putting their trust in the people that CAUSED THE RECESSION.

I believe disabled people need to prove they are disabled yes, seems logical to me. For other benefit reductions single Mums were able to stay at home until their kid was 10 years old, this is now down to when they go to school - at which time they look for a job. I agree with this also as when their kid is at school they are able to work and earn a living, contribute to the economy. So then the argument is with these cuts how do you drive job creation? They reduce the headline CT from 28% to 24% and to 20% for small business. This makes logical sense as you cannot have out of control public sector finances so everyone lives a happy life but the country goes every increasingly into a debt black hole. I heard under Labour some scary figures like a 30-40% INCREASE in public sector (or benefits cant recall which) costs over the last 10 years which by any means is huge. Also read the below:

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/C...-pay.6372291.jp

 

The report says that, on an hourly basis, the typical public-sector worker is paid 30 per cent more than their private-sector counterpart.

 

Another finding is that the chance of being made compulsorily redundant in the civil service is just 0.00007 per cent.

 

Public sector earn 30% more than private sector, have much better FINAL salary pension plans and yet want to strike if they receive a pay freeze from sentiment im seeing from the unions. Huge droves of people in the private sector have been sacked, taken pay cuts, benefit cuts etc and I fully believe the public sector needs to pull back on this 30% pay gap.

 

For people in the higher tax band the rate you start paying 40% has been reduced by £2500 I believe (its in the small print) + the marginal 50% or so over 150k. Everyone who is unbiased will tell you categorically the public sector needs to be cut, salaries need to come down to be on par with the private sector, pensions need to be brought into line (scrap final salary), sick days need to be also managed better and finally all the added "extras" that Labour introduced including Wellbeing officers need to be scrapped. I dont agree you need to sack people to manage budgets you need to reduce the budget on the people you currently have.

 

 

I believe disabled people need to prove they are disabled yes, seems logical to me.

I'll ask again: do you REALLY think they DON'T have to prove it now? Like I said before, do you really think people can just phone up and say they're disabled and then there's no further investigations?

 

 

For other benefit reductions single Mums were able to stay at home until their kid was 10 years old, this is now down to when they go to school - at which time they look for a job.

Again, where do you think these jobs are going to come from? As the experts are saying, the private sector simply hasn't recovered from the recession yet, and the only way it will be able to make up the shortfall like the government anticipates is if Britain's export industry undergoes a miracle within the next two years - do you really expect this to happen?

 

 

Public sector earn 30% more than private sector, have much better FINAL salary pension plans and yet want to strike if they receive a pay freeze from sentiment im seeing from the unions. Huge droves of people in the private sector have been sacked, taken pay cuts, benefit cuts etc and I fully believe the public sector needs to pull back on this 30% pay gap.

 

For people in the higher tax band the rate you start paying 40% has been reduced by £2500 I believe (its in the small print) + the marginal 50% or so over 150k. Everyone who is unbiased will tell you categorically the public sector needs to be cut, salaries need to come down to be on par with the private sector, pensions need to be brought into line (scrap final salary), sick days need to be also managed better and finally all the added "extras" that Labour introduced including Wellbeing officers need to be scrapped. I dont agree you need to sack people to manage budgets you need to reduce the budget on the people you currently have.

The average private-sector salary per-week is £420, while the average public-sector pay per-week is £450. Don't let facts get in the way of your Telgraph soundbites though.

Btw, there's simply no way government departments can cut by 25% without laying off huge numbers of staff. No way. I agree the very top public servants who are earning obscene amounts should have their wages brought down to fairer levels, but NOT the average public servant.

For other benefit reductions single Mums were able to stay at home until their kid was 10 years old, this is now down to when they go to school - at which time they look for a job. I agree with this also as when their kid is at school they are able to work and earn a living, contribute to the economy.

 

 

Firstly it was at 7 years old not 10. I know this because I have 2 kids myself and my ex wife was expected to start looking next year when my son becomes 7.

 

Secondly children start school at four years old. Most children that age get up around 6 or 7am and go to sleep at 12 hours later if you're lucky. Basically you're are asking single mums get up at 6ish to get their kids washed, teeth brushed, dressed, fed and into school by 8.30 so they can head straight down to whatever part time job they can get which will be a maximum of 5 hours a day, thereby not granting a lunch break of more than 30 mins because they need to finish no later than 2pm in order to pick the kids up from school whereupon they must go home make dinner, get the kids changed, bathed, homework done (yes they have homework at 4), share some quality/play time, got ready for bed and probably have a story read to them. If you are luckyyou will have them in bed at 7ish, whereupon you must then begin making sandwiches for the next day, doing the washing, washing the dishes, tidying, cleaning etc. On a good smooth run day you may get to relax around 8pm if you child settles straight away. This leaves a good 2 hours before you need to think about bed to be ready for the next day. Obviously children of that age are prone to all manner of unexpected events, accidents.

 

With children there are no days off at weekends nor is there any holiday. No doubt you aren't well off enough to afford childcare if you need to claim benefits in the first place.

 

It is worse if you have more than one child

 

In my own personal experience all this is true and I was absolutely f***ing knackered every day despite being part of a couple up until the time my eldest reached 7ish and my youngest nearly 5.

 

Single mums work f***ing hard as it is just being a mum and forcing them into work (if they can actually find a job now) will only stress them out more and inevitably it is both the moher and particularly the child that will suffer.

 

Of course the Tories don't care because they're all well off enough to pay some nanny peanuts to look after their kids while they p*** off on their jollys before shipping them off to some private school so that they don't have to see them until they come home for a couple of months in the summer. The very antithesis of parenting

for me im fine with increases in VAT etc but this really (as the topic describes) is not the problem. For months now the private sector have taken pay freezes, reduced work, lost jobs - crazy hours just to ensure you are in a job when they start cleaning out but the public sector have been relatively unscathed. We need to sort out the crazy public sector pay and benefits, "final salary" pensions when life expectancy is increasing all the time. Look at BA for an example, a privatised company with public sector benefits not able to survive in the real world. And thats an important point - we escalate the importance of doctors, nurses, teachers etc but in the private sector they get nothing like the benefits they have in the public sector. If they have a good pension its because THEY paid for it. Right now the govt doesn't put aside money for these vast public sector pensions so in fact its the private sector indirectly through taxes who fund it!!!

 

Absolute nonsense and we need to sort this out.

 

The reason why you lot in the Private sector got treated like that is simple - you didn't fight for your rights, you didn't effectively unionise yourselves or make sure you had proper worker's representation, you let the bosses walk all over you.... DONT criticise the Public sector for standing up for themselves and ensuring they get a fair shake of things... And where are you getting this stupid idea from that Public Sector pensions are "gold-plated" or whatever, oh, yeah, from the TRAITOR CLEGG!!!! <_< The two-faced little bitch who said he wouldn't put up VAT and he would scrap Trident (which would save the country BILLIONS by the way....), yeah, the Fib Dems fukked all of us who were stupid enough to vote for them.... I dont know anyone on a public sector pension who's all that well off, in fact, the majority of them still have to do the odd bit of part-time work here and there... Perhaps for the likes of Nick Clegg they're "gold-plated", or for the top civil servants and NHS Trust managers or consultant surgeons, you know, the MINORITY, but certainly NOT for the hundreds of thousands of ordinary teaching, local govt or nursing staff....

 

Take a look at Germany or Scandinavia, where workers in the private sector DO still enjoy benefits that their British counterparts were stupid to sign away for a short-term gain, where workers, especially skilled workers are treated with more respect, where there are stronger unions, better workers representation, etc.. Well, er, when was the last time you heard of a strike in Germany or Sweden effectively crippling the entire country...? It doesn't happen because their Govts actually see the worth in consulting with the workers and not trying to do them over....

 

If the importance of doctors, nurses and teachers is escalated, well, it's because they are working in professions which actually contribute something to society and actually try to make it better, they're not motivated purely by selfishness or greed... What has banking and the finance sector done for us other than ultimately ruin our economy...?

 

 

you ask where the jobs come from but cuts had to be made, the govt plan for jobs comes from reducing the corporation tax for all businesses over the next 4 years. This will enable the economy to pick up which in turn will bring jobs. Also its very well known public sector pensions are a joke, final salary is extremely expensive and under Labour in some areas people had "wellbeing" officers. Not to mention the public sector sick days are MUCH higher than the private sector. Its hard to hear but this is the truth and needs sorting out.

 

Also the welfare system is being abused by some and we need to be able to weed these people out. If the single mum is unable to get a job then she will continue to receive benefits - the important thing is at least she is looking! I would expect single Mum's to have a hard time but why should they have time off when their kid is at school? We live in such a PC society that everyone expects to have a good life. This is not the case and if life goes wrong for you then you will need to understand that you will find things difficult. Many stories of single Mum's running their own businesses and being successful. It happens and this should see more of it.

 

Onto the public sector - I agree a union should be involved if you are underpaid compared to the sector - completely agree, no argument. But BA is the perfect example of what is wrong with all of this. Private company still on old public sector benefits and remuneration - unable to compete in its sector. It wants to cut benefits, pay and pension to be more in line with RIVALS and they still strike costing millions of pounds. Private sector take a pay cut or pay freeze so the company can continue to be operational - I hear now in the public sector people readying to strike when a pay FREEZE is instigated. Its absolute tosh and nonsense.

you ask where the jobs come from but cuts had to be made, the govt plan for jobs comes from reducing the corporation tax for all businesses over the next 4 years. This will enable the economy to pick up which in turn will bring jobs.

 

No offence, but you're showing you have very little grasp of economics. Either that, or, if you do have even the remotest understanding of the Budget, you just don't care about people losing jobs. But either way, you can't seriously think a 4% cut in corporation tax is going to suddenly create the export industry miracle that the Coalition is banking on happening for their plans to succeed.

 

 

Not to mention the public sector sick days are MUCH higher than the private sector.

Source?

 

 

Also the welfare system is being abused by some and we need to be able to weed these people out. If the single mum is unable to get a job then she will continue to receive benefits - the important thing is at least she is looking! I would expect single Mum's to have a hard time but why should they have time off when their kid is at school? We live in such a PC society that everyone expects to have a good life. This is not the case and if life goes wrong for you then you will need to understand that you will find things difficult. Many stories of single Mum's running their own businesses and being successful. It happens and this should see more of it

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be all boring and introduce facts again here. But if you knew anything about how unemployment benefits function, you'd know that, in order to get Jobseekers' Allowance, you need to apply for at least three jobs a week, and you need to report at the Job Centre once every two weeks (at a time of their choosing) with proof of your six applications. If you don't apply for 3 jobs in a certain week, your benefits are immediately ended. So how do you think people "sponge" then?

 

 

I hear now in the public sector people readying to strike when a pay FREEZE is instigated. Its absolute tosh and nonsense.

As everyone knows, pay freeze = pay cut in real terms, especially when VAT is going to drive inflation sky-high. Again, you're showing you either know nothing about the basics of economics, or you just don't give a $h!t about the less-well-off - in which case, it would be save everyone time if you just admitted it.

 

By the way, if my posts seem harsh then too bad. I'm not going to sit here trading nicey-niceys with people who spew ill-informed nonsense. Atleast Ethan, while his views are vile, doesn't just purely make stuff up to support his argument like you've done about 10 times here.

Edited June 23, 201015 yr by Danny

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ did a recent study on Public vs Private working and pay - study was on the 18th June. To add creditability they are:

 

Policy Exchange is an independent, non-partisan educational charity. We work with academics and policy makers from across the political spectrum. We are particularly interested in free market and localist solutions to public policy questions.

Their publication (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Controlling_public_spending.pdf) found that:

• On any measure, public sector workers are now, on average, better paid than

  private sector workers. The median salary in the public sector is 12% higher,

  or 30% higher on an hourly basis.

• This pay advantage is not evenly distributed. It is higher in lower grades, with the

  bottom 10% of public sector workers now 25% better paid than their private sector

  equivalents. This is a post 1997 phenomenon – theywere 4%lesswell paid in 1997.

• We do not believe that the public sector premium can be explained away by

  differing qualifications or age (although no-one has suggested it can be fully

  explained away). Paper qualifications are used in the public sector where

  informal CV experience tends to be used in the private sector. Using previously

  unpublished ONS data, we find that in two thirds of cases where people

  are doing the same job in both sectors, public sector workers are substantially

  better paid. This might be thought surprising in the case of private nurses or

  teachers, given the high cost of private healthcare or education.

The list goes on but for brevity I have only pasted 3 points. Its all in fact summed up here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economi...eport-says.html. Also to your point now we are speaking about real facts not just generalisations:

 

The average public sector organisation loses an average of 9.7 days per employee per year through absence compared to just 6.4 days in the private sector – around 50 per cent more. Also, since 1996 a public worker has been on strike twenty two times more than a private worker has.

 

Danny you make fighting points but they are only that. I work in the market every day and am fully aware of Economics, impact of macro/ micro factors on the economy and any research notes that are published so my points do not come from a position of lack of knowledge but from one which has already carefully considered the options available.