Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Spending Review: IFS warns of deepest cuts in history; "George Osborne will announce the most dramatic and far-reaching cuts to state spending Britain has ever seen"
Topic Started: Nov 22 2015, 05:32 AM (387 Views)
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/spending-review/12009574/Spending-Review-IFS-warns-of-deepest-cuts-in-history.html

Quote:
 


[...]

George Osborne will announce the most dramatic and far-reaching cuts to state spending Britain has ever seen as he sets out his plan to clear the deficit - and run a surplus.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, Britain’s most influential economic think tank, has calculated that Whitehall departments that have not been given special protection face average cuts of 27 per cent in their budgets, when the Chancellor unveils his Spending Review on Wednesday.

The cuts between 2010 and 2020 will be the deepest ever seen and will reduce the overall size of state spending to its lowest level since the War, Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said.

[...]

Meanwhile, the axe will fall on council services such as waste collection and libraries, as well as transport, elderly care, college training, police and fire service funding, he said.

The deep cuts are necessary in order to meet Mr Osborne’s target of wiping out the budget deficit and running a small surplus by the 2019-20 tax year.

“The make-up of the state will be extremely different by 2020 from what it was in 2010,” Mr Johnson said. “It will be much more focused on health and pensions and much less focused on things like provision of local services, police, further education, and other things like that.

“If you put these cuts on top of what we saw in the last Parliament, there really isn’t anything to compare. We have never had anything like it. The size of the state overall will be roughly where it was at the end of the 1990s, which was a historic low for the post-War period.”


Incredibly, people voted for all of this, hope you enjoy it.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8063

More detailed stats here.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 22 2015, 05:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
And because of Giddies total incompetence it still won't change matters. So people will be put through all this pain to achieve absolutely NOTHING!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Are you in favour of further borrowing to fuel current consumption? If not then please show how you are going to achieve such? If not best explain the morality of your stance? If totally confused then just ignore the questions.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Lets be honest ReJinalD, you are only for these cuts because you won't be affected to any major degree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 09:09 AM
Are you in favour of further borrowing to fuel current consumption?
Well the Tories clearly are - they have borrowed more in 6 years in office than NuLab borrowed in 12.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 09:09 AM
Are you in favour of further borrowing to fuel current consumption? If not then please show how you are going to achieve such? If not best explain the morality of your stance? If totally confused then just ignore the questions.

Standard narrative, not interested in your false dichotomies anymore; the world is a bigger place than you give it credit for.

No we need to cut the debt but the Tories are going to crash the economy the way things are going. I have linked so much evidence to back this up, but you will claim I haven't. Good for you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heard it all before. That ugly word 'recession' will put paid to Osborne's plans.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 09:39 AM
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 09:09 AM
Are you in favour of further borrowing to fuel current consumption? If not then please show how you are going to achieve such? If not best explain the morality of your stance? If totally confused then just ignore the questions.

Standard narrative, not interested in your false dichotomies anymore; the world is a bigger place than you give it credit for.

No we need to cut the debt but the Tories are going to crash the economy the way things are going. I have linked so much evidence to back this up, but you will claim I haven't. Good for you.


RJD's been C-too'ing you?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 22 2015, 09:24 AM
Lets be honest ReJinalD, you are only for these cuts because you won't be affected to any major degree.
Rubbish. It is a matter of principle and here I see the stance of the Usuals are thoroughly unprincipled. Whether such cuts impinge on me or my family is totally irrelevant. Try and answer my questions honestly and let us see where you stand. Thus far the Usuals always avoid the questions and run away from them like sand. Stand up, look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, for once, where do you stand. Do you give a shit about the morality of borrowing to fuel current consumption or are you one of those who does not give a shit who pays as long as you get what you think is your entitlement? Enough of the obfuscation, answer the questions.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 09:39 AM
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 09:09 AM
Are you in favour of further borrowing to fuel current consumption? If not then please show how you are going to achieve such? If not best explain the morality of your stance? If totally confused then just ignore the questions.

Standard narrative, not interested in your false dichotomies anymore; the world is a bigger place than you give it credit for.

No we need to cut the debt but the Tories are going to crash the economy the way things are going. I have linked so much evidence to back this up, but you will claim I haven't. Good for you.
Put up your evidence. No links please.

You say you are now for cutting the debt. Is this by 10% or 50% or 100%, how and when. No more of your obfuscations spell it out. If you are against all proposed cuts so far then spell out the ones that you support.

All claims by the left thus far wrt to cutting the Public Sector have thus far been wrong. The cuts will bring the Public Sector costs down to a similar portion of those in 1997 when we had a growing economy with growing jobs and growth in revenues. Is that what you refer to as "crashing the economy"? You do spout a load of Corbynista baloney.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 11:25 AM
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 09:39 AM
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 09:09 AM
Are you in favour of further borrowing to fuel current consumption? If not then please show how you are going to achieve such? If not best explain the morality of your stance? If totally confused then just ignore the questions.

Standard narrative, not interested in your false dichotomies anymore; the world is a bigger place than you give it credit for.

No we need to cut the debt but the Tories are going to crash the economy the way things are going. I have linked so much evidence to back this up, but you will claim I haven't. Good for you.
Put up your evidence. No links please.

You say you are now for cutting the debt. Is this by 10% or 50% or 100%, how and when. No more of your obfuscations spell it out. If you are against all proposed cuts so far then spell out the ones that you support.

All claims by the left thus far wrt to cutting the Public Sector have thus far been wrong. The cuts will bring the Public Sector costs down to a similar portion of those in 1997 when we had a growing economy with growing jobs and growth in revenues. Is that what you refer to as "crashing the economy"? You do spout a load of Corbynista baloney.
No links and no evidence will be forthcoming this time, I have had enough of your unsubstantiated dismissals based on pure tribal ignorance. Do your own searching of my posts if able, or just read them properly when they are made. Fact is, I do offer evidence and great substance. Hard to see any of that in most of your posts, it's almost all tribalistic anti-Labour opinion. Not too keen on Lab myself but not interested in pure BS spin of any kind.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 11:32 AM
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 11:25 AM
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 09:39 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Put up your evidence. No links please.

You say you are now for cutting the debt. Is this by 10% or 50% or 100%, how and when. No more of your obfuscations spell it out. If you are against all proposed cuts so far then spell out the ones that you support.

All claims by the left thus far wrt to cutting the Public Sector have thus far been wrong. The cuts will bring the Public Sector costs down to a similar portion of those in 1997 when we had a growing economy with growing jobs and growth in revenues. Is that what you refer to as "crashing the economy"? You do spout a load of Corbynista baloney.
No links and no evidence will be forthcoming this time, I have had enough of your unsubstantiated dismissals based on pure tribal ignorance. Do your own searching of my posts if able, or just read them properly when they are made. Fact is, I do offer evidence and great substance. Hard to see any of that in most of your posts, it's almost all tribalistic anti-Labour opinion. Not too keen on Lab myself but not interested in pure BS spin of any kind.

I did not expect you to attempt at a substantiation therefore I claim you have thrown in the towel. Now maybe you will start to get some insight into the fact that your politics, such as they are, are based on quicksand. How you have opinions that are not based on substance is beyond me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 11:32 AM
I have had enough of your unsubstantiated dismissals based on pure tribal ignorance.
Join the club.

I had an email from my (Tory) MP yesterday, in response to my email to him about did he realise 6700 families in the constituency would be adversely effected by proposed cuts to working tax credit. It appears even he has woken up and smelled the coffee.
Taking £200000 a week out of the local economy on top of the other cuts is going to cause some very serious economic and social problems locally and I suspect will cost a lot more than the cuts save.
Edited by papasmurf, Nov 22 2015, 11:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
To remind that Osborne has a track record of being wrong on every forecast, planned outcome, predicted result he has made. It will be the same this time!
He will either change course, or ease up on the course he set .... because it is the wrong course to achieve the aims he has set for it.

His tactic is to extend and increase austerity. His declared aim is to remove the deficit. The two are incompatable.
He will either have to increase taxes dramatically, and ease up on austerity to achieve this said aim, or will do as before and flatline the economy for three or four years and miss his target on both deficit reduction and spending cuts. If he does as stated he will invite recession, increase welfare spending, widen the deficit, and be an utter failure .......... not an option!


Edited by Affa, Nov 22 2015, 11:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 22 2015, 11:25 AM
The cuts will bring the Public Sector costs down to a similar portion of those in 1997 when we had a growing economy with growing jobs and growth in revenues.
Why chose 1997 specifically?

GDP grew more after 1999/2000 showed greater growth than 1997, so why not chose those years?

Do you think lower public spending was the ONLY reason growth occurred in 1997?

Or do you think wider, possibly global, economic pressures also had an effect?

Did you chose 1997 and mention growth because 1997 was the last year the Tories were in and the economy was really growing?

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 22 2015, 11:42 AM
To remind that Osborne has a track record of being wrong on every forecast, planned outcome, predicted result he has made. It will be the same this time!
He will either change course, or ease up on the course he set .... because it is the wrong course to achieve the aims he has set for it.

His tactic is to extend and increase austerity. His declared aim is to remove the deficit. The two are incompatable.
He will either have to increase taxes dramatically, and ease up on austerity to achieve this said aim, or will do as before and flatline the economy for three or four years and miss his target on both deficit reduction and spending cuts. If he does as stated he will invite recession, increase welfare spending, widen the deficit, and be an utter failure .......... not an option!


Agree completely, an excellent post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 22 2015, 11:41 AM
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 11:32 AM
I have had enough of your unsubstantiated dismissals based on pure tribal ignorance.
Join the club.

I had an email from my (Tory) MP yesterday, in response to my email to him about did he realise 6700 families in the constituency would be adversely effected by proposed cuts to working tax credit. It appears even he has woken up and smelled the coffee.
Taking £200000 a week out of the local economy on top of the other cuts is going to cause some very serious economic and social problems locally and I suspect will cost a lot more than the cuts save.
And therein lies a very serious issue

If Osborne takes £billions out of government spending there will always be secondary effects. Take that £200000 a week out of enough local economies and you trigger a recession

On the other hand keep spending by borrowing (or printing money) and you trigger a total collapse of the economy. 'Devil and the deep blue sea options come to mind.

We need some fully thought out ideas from our politicians, real leaders to sell the awful truth to the public and some serious reality in that public that we are collectively living beyond our means. Won't happen will it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
PV: Why chose 1997 specifically?
Well OK 1997-2000. The period before Brown lost his prudence and went out on a wild binge.


PV: GDP grew more after 1999/2000 showed greater growth than 1997, so why not chose those years?

So what. Not my point. Why dont you take the period 1993 to 2000 and wonder why it was a period of sustained growth.

PV: Do you think lower public spending was the ONLY reason growth occurred in 1997?

Why would you ask such a silly question? But the converse is here with us today and it has hurt the economy.

PV: Or do you think wider, possibly global, economic pressures also had an effect?

Another silly question. As a trading nation the UK is exposed to the economic situations around the globe. I would have thought you understood this.

PV: Did you chose 1997 and mention growth because 1997 was the last year the Tories were in and the economy was really growing?

See above, replace 1997 and insert 1993-2000 that was the period of Tory set budgets, before Brown went on his binge.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Buccaneer
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
These cuts to government spending ought to have begun when the coalition took over, but typically, the usuals (LibDims) happily prevented them, and we're now where we are, having had to borrow more to pay the huge interest on the debt Brown left, and adding all the time Osborne failed to start reducing the size of state spending.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Nov 22 2015, 11:59 AM
These cuts to government spending ought to have begun when the coalition took over, but typically, the usuals (LibDims) happily prevented them, and we're now where we are, having had to borrow more to pay the huge interest on the debt Brown left, and adding all the time Osborne failed to start reducing the size of state spending.

Yeah; Osborne is a complete Tosser.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD: I have no idea why you need to reply to me on every thread I post on today. Are you fixated on me? Perhaps you are annoyed that I reject your baseless, utterly vacuous claims?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Nov 22 2015, 11:59 AM
These cuts to government spending ought to have begun when the coalition took over, but typically, the usuals (LibDims) happily prevented them, and we're now where we are, having had to borrow more to pay the huge interest on the debt Brown left, and adding all the time Osborne failed to start reducing the size of state spending.
Absolutely correct in every detail. Had the Tories had a majority in 2010 or Cameron the guts to form a minority Gov. and face down opposition we would have been a lot further by now of ridding ourselves of this Millstone. Maybe like most others and seen the back of it. But no the opposition do not want cuts, they just want the problem to go away by magic or borrow more. WQhen you ask the about the immorality of continuing such borrowing for longer than absolutely necessary then they have no answer on offer. Bunch of scurrilous weasels.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 22 2015, 12:12 PM
The Buccaneer
Nov 22 2015, 11:59 AM
These cuts to government spending ought to have begun when the coalition took over, but typically, the usuals (LibDims) happily prevented them, and we're now where we are, having had to borrow more to pay the huge interest on the debt Brown left, and adding all the time Osborne failed to start reducing the size of state spending.

Yeah; Osborne is a complete Tosser.

Absolutely, but much less of a Tosser than anyone on the Opposition benches. Labour do not even know how to think about the fundamental questions never mind reason what best to do. They are in total disarray and intellectually challenged. Not a good sign for people who think they can run a Gov. our current services plus the railways and utilities.

What we are seeing in Labour at the moment is total disunity as the Leader (what a joke) cannot demand that anyone conforms to his policies. Each and every time when pressed they squirm and excuse themselves by stating that they have not yet formed a common agreed position. The vote on whether or not to bomb Syria is going to be interesting. Will Corbyn demand a three line whip or will he let his lot have a free vote. If he lets his lot have a free vote and significantly numbers chose the opposite door to him, then what? Will Corbyn throw his life long pacifist position overboard and vote for bombing?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 12:53 PM
RJD: I have no idea why you need to reply to me on every thread I post on today. Are you fixated on me? Perhaps you are annoyed that I reject your baseless, utterly vacuous claims?
Not at all I just do not accept your claims and as this is a debating forum I am out to undermine them as best I can as often as I can. Currently you are one of the easy targets. So either up your game or expect more of the same as I cannot tolerate such unsubstantiated lefty tripe. I need to hammer them and show them up for what they are. That is my sport.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
That's great but you say your time is valuable and yet you spend it posting unsub'd tribalistic opinions in reply to someone who isn't even likely to vote for Corbyn.. :rubchin:

Just ask yourself: why do I bother?
Edited by skwirked, Nov 22 2015, 04:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 04:04 PM
That's great but you say your time is valuable and yet you spend it posting unsub'd tribalistic opinions in reply to someone who isn't even likely to vote for Corbyn.. :rubchin:

Just ask yourself: why do I bother?
Rubbish. I think that Corbyn does a good job of demonstrating that he is an idiot all by himself. I do not know why you bother because you do not appear to understand how you have come by your opinions. You were the one who put his tribal credentials on display by seeking to excuse the indefensible. There is only so much bs one can swallow. Get down to serious grown up debating or expect further scrutiny of your empty claims.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Your post is rubbish, I concur. And remember: "why do I bother". !wav!
Edited by skwirked, Nov 22 2015, 04:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 04:14 PM
Your post is rubbish, I concur. And remember: "why do I bother". !wav!
Again just opinion. Opinions are usually solicited from those consider to have some expertise, hence "Expert Opinion". but you appear to have none.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ref sig
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 22 2015, 04:29 PM
Posted Image
I am going to put my PC hat on and call that ping pong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
at the end of the day, it is really simple.

We can't keep spending more than we earn.

In my opinion, it should be a legal obligation upon all governments that they should keep expenditure lower than income. Borrowing might be permissable for capital projects, but NOT for general spending. There MIGHT be a case for relaxing this in the event of a major recession I suppose... but this should be sanctioned by parliament.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Nov 22 2015, 06:56 PM
at the end of the day, it is really simple.

We can't keep spending more than we earn.

In my opinion, it should be a legal obligation upon all governments that they should keep expenditure lower than income. Borrowing might be permissable for capital projects, but NOT for general spending. There MIGHT be a case for relaxing this in the event of a major recession I suppose... but this should be sanctioned by parliament.
This is what Labour did as there was a major recession in 2008-2009 and it was sanctioned through parliament. In fact Giddie agreed with the measures put in place at the time.

The main reason government borrowing is currently so high is because of the incompetence of Giddie and the current government. Punishing the poor by making them poorer is no way to achieve this. All Giddie will ever do is to make things worse by pursuing the present strategy. Even some right wing idiots can see it is all doomed to failure. However some serial Tory tribalists will never accept this.
Edited by Lewis, Nov 22 2015, 07:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 04:14 PM
Your post is rubbish, I concur. And remember: "why do I bother". !wav!
Just ignore him then. It is a waste of time even trying to debate with some.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Nov 22 2015, 06:56 PM
at the end of the day, it is really simple.

We can't keep spending more than we earn.

In my opinion, it should be a legal obligation upon all governments that they should keep expenditure lower than income. Borrowing might be permissable for capital projects, but NOT for general spending. There MIGHT be a case for relaxing this in the event of a major recession I suppose... but this should be sanctioned by parliament.
They'd always find ways round it. PFI was in theory a good idea until some wit spotted it could be used for off balance sheet spending

At heart the electorate doesn't want to live within its means and they'll probably stay like that until the international markets force reality on them. There are better ways, we can hope.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gaffa
New Member
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Meanwhile, the axe will fall on council services such as waste collection and libraries, as well as transport, elderly care, college training, police and fire service funding, he said.

The deep cuts are necessary in order to meet Mr Osborne’s target of wiping out the budget deficit and running a small surplus by the 2019-20 tax year.



This is another instance of the Conservative party not taking any notice of the people the actually voted for them and hurt the normal person that may need the facilities mentioned in this quote. It's all for osbourne to save face and make it seem he is a politician of his word so he has some power and good grace once David Cameron is gone because he knows that whoever is voted in next probably won't keep him unless he can deliver on targets and let's be honest this target was optimistic at best and too soon at worst.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 22 2015, 07:18 PM


At heart the electorate doesn't want to live within its means and they'll probably stay like that until the international markets force reality on them. There are better ways, we can hope.
Ain't that the truth, unfortunately it's been a British tradition since the 80's to grow the economy with the aid of personal debt, and when that debt becomes unbearable a new way is found of getting round the earlier problems whilst promoting the illusion it's different this time.

The end of boom and bust and the long term economic plan are the same thing, irresponsible bollocks for a nation that refuses to wake up and come to terms with it's doing and where it's heading.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Nov 22 2015, 06:56 PM
at the end of the day, it is really simple.

We can't keep spending more than we earn.


The UK is one of the top earners.
This s not about not earning enough. It is about those earners not contributing enough towards the upkeep of the State!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 22 2015, 09:21 PM
Steve K
Nov 22 2015, 07:18 PM


At heart the electorate doesn't want to live within its means and they'll probably stay like that until the international markets force reality on them. There are better ways, we can hope.
Ain't that the truth, unfortunately it's been a British tradition since the 80's to grow the economy with the aid of personal debt, and when that debt becomes unbearable a new way is found of getting round the earlier problems whilst promoting the illusion it's different this time.

The end of boom and bust and the long term economic plan are the same thing, irresponsible bollocks for a nation that refuses to wake up and come to terms with it's doing and where it's heading.
Seconded both.

This govt have proven that they have not got the answer nor do they understand the Q.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gaffa
Nov 22 2015, 08:59 PM
Quote:
 
Meanwhile, the axe will fall on council services such as waste collection and libraries, as well as transport, elderly care, college training, police and fire service funding, he said.

The deep cuts are necessary in order to meet Mr Osborne’s target of wiping out the budget deficit and running a small surplus by the 2019-20 tax year.



This is another instance of the Conservative party not taking any notice of the people the actually voted for them and hurt the normal person that may need the facilities mentioned in this quote. It's all for osbourne to save face and make it seem he is a politician of his word so he has some power and good grace once David Cameron is gone because he knows that whoever is voted in next probably won't keep him unless he can deliver on targets and let's be honest this target was optimistic at best and too soon at worst.
Osborne made his job harder by not cutting deeper sooner.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply