David Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Exactly right. Yoghurt and people who have swallowed the line that cuts are unavoidable, have a look at this website, http://falseeconomy.org.uk/ which has a very good clear explanation of why the cuts won't help the economy and will make Britain more unfair. That's a good read. Â Others such as Paul Krugman, Nobel Economics Laureate who writes for the New York Times have interesting opinions on the matter. Â There are also interesting points to be found on various Trade Union and anti-cuts websites, such as; Â Since the banking crisis led to a rising deficit, Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and their supporters have told us that Britain is broke and at risk of becoming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm not a twat. Â You are, of course, welcome to your opinions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Toss, I walked right into that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The spending cuts are necessary to balance the books, I don't see how people can still be against them, it's blindingly obvious, but then I find myself expecting a bit more from people then I probably should. Public services are bloated and inefficient and need cutting as they bring nothing in and private companies just can't support it. Â The current national debt is less than the value of our banking "investments." The deficit is on the large side, but still manageable. Â I would stress that I support a balanced budget. In fact, I support running a small surplus to be set aside/prudently invested to be used for genuine Keynesian balancing measures when the economy takes another downturn then, as that investment grows, I'd like to see the growth used to fund gradual tax cuts starting from the bottom up. But that's beside the point. The point is that the scale of the cuts is unnecessary and is almost entirely ideologically driven. The scale of Labour's spending was unnecessary and was almost entirely ideologically driven. They achieved nothing other than creating a level of dependency never seen before in Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 The scale of Labour's spending was unnecessary and was almost entirely ideologically driven. So two wrongs will make a right then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The spending cuts are necessary to balance the books, I don't see how people can still be against them, it's blindingly obvious, but then I find myself expecting a bit more from people then I probably should. Public services are bloated and inefficient and need cutting as they bring nothing in and private companies just can't support it. Â The current national debt is less than the value of our banking "investments." The deficit is on the large side, but still manageable. Â I would stress that I support a balanced budget. In fact, I support running a small surplus to be set aside/prudently invested to be used for genuine Keynesian balancing measures when the economy takes another downturn then, as that investment grows, I'd like to see the growth used to fund gradual tax cuts starting from the bottom up. But that's beside the point. The point is that the scale of the cuts is unnecessary and is almost entirely ideologically driven. The scale of Labour's spending was unnecessary and was almost entirely ideologically driven. They achieved nothing other than creating a level of dependency never seen before in Britain. Â I'm not arguing in favour of Labour policies. The PFI drive was one of the most recklessly irresponsible things any government has ever done. The Tories, though, seek to punish the poor for the crimes of the very, very rich. That is not just irresponsible. It is grotesque and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 It's just not true either, people need to start putting this partisan evil bollocks aside and accept Cameron isn't Thatcher, that was 25 years ago. It's 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Well, OK. Why should I, who don't even have a damn mortgage, be paying additional VAT and suffering cuts to the public services I use in order to pay for a gigantic bailout of some spectacularly irresponsible banks? Why not, at the very least, take every single penny of profit they make until their debt to the country is repaid, and then bump their tax up to make sure we've got something in store for the next time they fuck up? Because that's not how the game works. The poor pay for the mistakes of the rich. How many people actually responsible for any of the financial crisis lost their jobs as a result? Of those, how many are struggling by on JSA rather than an extravagant pension or a cosy non-executive directorship of another major financial institution? And how many poor people are signing on and being told that their meagre benefits are going to be cut because "we have to balance the books"? If you can't see how utterly unfair that scenario is, you really shouldn't be trying to talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm not arguing in favour of Labour policies. The PFI drive was one of the most recklessly irresponsible things any government has ever done. The Tories, though, seek to punish the poor for the crimes of the very, very rich. That is not just irresponsible. It is grotesque and evil. How are the poor being punished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 And the rich are a lot richer. The wealthy in this country have increased their fortune by far more than the poor have increased theirs, so the gap is wider. Â It's absolutely ridiculous that we live in a country that sees less than 1% of the UK population having a personal combined wealth of over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 71% of people aged 16-24 are worried about immigration. I wonder what their opinion is of their trendy lefty teachers who promoted immigration as a wonderful thing throughout their school years? What will the teachers have to say now to the millions of school leavers and graduates who are unable to find employment? Vote Labour? I don't think so. Â Labour have pretty much destroyed the future of their party. Who is their core voter base now? Working-class people? No. Immigrants? Maybe in the short term but as they become established here they will be as anti-immigration as their British counterparts. Old Labour die-hards? Yeah, but those people are dying off. Students? Possibly, but they don't tend to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Its funny how there is seemingly a job shortage yet the scum can find or create "unpaid" work for people on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 There's always jobs that kind of need doing but aren't worth the minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Its funny how there is seemingly a job shortage yet the scum can find or create "unpaid" work for people on benefits. Â The fact it's unpaid is probably a key identifier there, it's easy to hire 10,000 people and not paying them. It's the whole paying for them malarkey. Â I still read "worries about immigration" as "OMGMUZZASEVERYWHERE" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Labour have pretty much destroyed the future of their party. Yes, they have been doing so badly in the opinion polls lately, haven't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts