Jump to content

Featured Replies

That article says EdBalls has said all departments bar the NHS will have their spending cut until the books are balanced.

Edited by Danny

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Views 65.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Given the current Conservative plan involves cutting each department outside the NHS, education and foreign aid by 43% from current spending in order to finance both a £20bn surplus and the various wheezes and tax cuts the Tories committed to in the Autumn Statement and at Conference, Ed Balls could do that each year and there would still be a gulf between what we have planned and what the Conservatives have planned - even without taking into account that there's zero chance of Labour keeping to the 80:20 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises the Tories have done this parliament (or the 100:0 ratio they probably have planned for the next).
Given the current Conservative plan involves cutting each department outside the NHS, education and foreign aid by 43% from current spending in order to finance both a £20bn surplus and the various wheezes and tax cuts the Tories committed to in the Autumn Statement and at Conference, Ed Balls could do that each year and there would still be a gulf between what we have planned and what the Conservatives have planned - even without taking into account that there's zero chance of Labour keeping to the 80:20 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises the Tories have done this parliament (or the 100:0 ratio they probably have planned for the next).

 

So basically, it's going to be an exact re-run of the 2010 campaign: the most microscopic of differences between the parties (yet bizarrely the leaders still vitriolically attacking eachother in spite of so few differences--giving the opening for Clegg's most powerful line of his otherwise overrated debates performance "the more they attack eachother, the more they sound exactly the same"), leading to public apathy and/or disgust. Why Labour would expect the same strategy as an election they lost to somehow lead to a different result is beyond me. And also beyond me is why they think that, for the 60% of people who want no more austerity, a stance of "massive cuts but marginally less terrible than the Tories'" is going to be good enough when there's a variety of other non-Tory parties on offer.

Edited by Danny

The 2010 campaign was fought almost exclusively on whether or not to make £6bn of cuts. I don't think a fundamental restructuring of the state with 40+% cuts to the smallest it's been since the 30s vs one which plays an active role in helping people (despite cuts likely at a marginal level of about 10%) is 'the most microscopic of differences' - that kind of spending is the difference between Britain in the 30s and Britain in the 50s.
The 2010 campaign was fought almost exclusively on whether or not to make £6bn of cuts. I don't think a fundamental restructuring of the state with 40+% cuts to the smallest it's been since the 30s vs one which plays an active role in helping people (despite cuts likely at a marginal level of about 10%) is 'the most microscopic of differences' - that kind of spending is the difference between Britain in the 30s and Britain in the 50s.

 

Is this supposed to be a significant difference?

 

The point about comparing it to the 2010 election is splitting hairs about specific numbers or percentages means nothing to people. All that the public will hear is that Labour are joining the Tories and Lib Dems in saying there needs to be more significant cuts, while on the other side the Greens and the SNP will be saying there's no need for cuts, and UKIP will be saying the deficit can be cut solely through cutting immigration and foreign aid while leaving all "ordinary people"'s services alone. Who exactly is Labour going to appeal to in such a scenario?

Has there ever been a significant left-wing government in the UK by these standards?!
"Take public services back just 70 years rather than 90 years. Vote Labour!"

Edited by Danny

That wasn't quite what I meant. In terms of the difference in how much public spending is as a % of GDP, the Tory plan would be roughly equivalent to that of the 30s and the Labour plan would probably be roughly equivalent to that of the 50s (for the record, it was at that % in the late 90s and below it for most of the 00s). That isn't the same thing as 'taking public services back to the 50s' by any stretch of the imagination.
On the subject of the Greens and the SNP, they always seem to be remarkably silent about what their spending plans would be.
On the subject of the Greens and the SNP, they always seem to be remarkably silent about what their spending plans would be.

 

Caroline Lucas and some SNP guy who's name I forgot were on Newsnight the other day, and both said they were against further spending cuts.

The SNP released a 700 page book on their plans last year...

Yeah, the oil prices they costed that all with have kind of collapsed since then though...

Robert Peston estimates the difference in policies is about 50 billion on the deficit.

 

local government will be non existent by 2020 if either of them get their way. It's a cold hearted future ahead

Robert Peston estimates the difference in policies is about 50 billion on the deficit.

 

local government will be non existent by 2020 if either of them get their way. It's a cold hearted future ahead

Those two seem a little contradictory.

Those two seem a little contradictory.

 

Not really -- it's possible for one person to have a more aggressive type of cancer than another person, but for both to die in the end. Especially since local government in many northern towns are already on life support even before they've started this new round of cuts that they're both promising.

Not really -- it's possible for one person to have a more aggressive type of cancer than another person, but for both to die in the end. Especially since local government in many northern towns are already on life support even before they've started this new round of cuts that they're both promising.

Lovely analogy.

 

Seriously though, this generation of Tories have an almost pathological hatred of local government and the services it provides. You only need to look at the hollowing out of something like planning whereby Pickles is desperate for some kind of system where the only two groups to have any kind of say are neighbourhood forums and himself. It's one of the areas where the two main parties couldn't be much further apart, especially given that it's kind of within Labour's interests to have some sturdy sub-national structures that will be able to resist any future Tory government.

The emasculation of local government over the last 35 years or so is one reason why the calibre of politicians in parliament is so low. In the past, many people spent time as a local councillor before standing for parliament. Now, aspiring MPs look at local government and decide it's just not worth it. As a result, the number of MPs with any experience of local government continues to fall.

 

It also means voters decide that their vote in local elections is unimportant. Therefore, they either don't bother voting at all or use the opportunity to give the government a good kicking.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.