PDA

View Full Version : ConDem Nation



Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th May 10, 06:32 AM
Liberals Democrats have made a pact with the Conservative party. Lower taxes for poorer people, referendum on PR. Stripping away of social safety net...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/7714192/Conservative-Liberal-Democrat-deal-will-be-tough-on-the-rich.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/05/prime_minister_cameron_and_eur.html

Rekon it will last long?

Cullion
12th May 10, 06:57 AM
I doubt if the benefit changes we'll see will amount to a 'stripping away of the social safety net', particularly during a Liberal Democrat coalition.

Largely the deal seems sound, although there won't be any progress rewinding the European legislation that I'd hoped for.

As I'd hoped, they are both enthusiastic about unwinding the 'Big Brother' state that Labour was building, although the detail of the 'Freedom Bill' remains to be seen.

The next two big stumbling blocks are likely to come when the conservatives find that their initially proposed cuts aren't big enough and the Liberals refuse to budge further.

There might be some disagreements about what to do about Afghanistan too, but I doubt they'll be as big.

The younger conservatives are relatively socially liberal, and the Lib Dems always have been. Considering the financial trouble we're in, it wouldn't surprise me to see moves towards liberalising various 'vices' in order to generate extra tax revenue (gambling, and possibly mild extension of the de facto legal status of prostitution and other forms of adult entertainment, though decriminalising soft drugs like marijuana to the point where they're taxable seems unlikely in this parliament).

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th May 10, 07:23 AM
Yep I thnk that's a fair assessment. They got Vince Cable into the teasury which was a good move I think.

I think we will see more cuts in front line psychiatiric/social services services than you imagine though.

honesty
12th May 10, 07:38 AM
I personally can see this as a really good thing. The Lib Dems are going to push for political reform and removing the big brother laws, and the conservatives are going to hold back on the Lib Dems Euro policies. The 2 areas they are going to have big arguments over are nuclear power and marriage tax credits. (Both of which I'm not decided on myself I have to say).

Having David Laws from the Lib Dems (a former investment banker) as the chief secretary to the Treasury and Vince Cable as the business secretary are very good moves. Its good to see almost all (or all, not sure about Huhne) of the people in cabinet positions from the lib dems are from the market liberal side of the party.

On political reform, it seems likely we're going to get the alternative vote system. Its not PR but at least its a step on the path. We also seem to be getting, finally, a properly elected house of lords using PR. Which is going to good. My wife has a slight concern with this, and I can see her point, in that currently the house of lords acts as a form of legal sense check (it having a large amount of lawyers on it in the form of the law lords) and that could be something that we loose. I wonder how they will change the house with the new supreme court setup we have as well.

What part of the social safety net are you seeing being removed?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th May 10, 07:49 AM
y'know the bit where the poor unemployed people go crazy and there isnt anywhere to put them

honesty
12th May 10, 08:00 AM
I see nothing in the current information on the coalition documentation that indicates any policies on welfare reform. Where are you getting this information from?

Cullion
12th May 10, 08:18 AM
There are proposals to stop people's benefits if they refuse to take a job offered them, but we've been down this road before and I'm skeptical whether or not it will get implemented.

Max didn't specifically mention benefits though, I think he was referring to cuts in social workers and mental health services.

honesty
12th May 10, 08:22 AM
Well, I personally agree with the first bit you say there, but I haven't seen anything in the coalition agreement on cuts to social workers and mental health services. I am very skeptical of anything going ahead that is not in that document, as basically that outlines what the government has agreed to do for the next 5 years.

Cullion
12th May 10, 08:35 AM
I don't think Max claimed it was in the proposals per se, he just knows that they're going to have to cut shitloads of something, and social workers and the mentally ill are usually soft targets, and tend to be ignored by the press until something goes horribly wrong.

honesty
12th May 10, 08:46 AM
Ah right. He was scare mongering then.

If you haven't seen it before the coalition agreement is behind the cut:


Agreements between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party was reached May 11, 2010.



This document sets out agreements reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on a range of issues. These are the issues that needed to be resolved between us in order for us to work together as a strong and stable government. It will be followed in due course by a final Coalition Agreement, covering the full range of policy and including foreign, defence and domestic policy issues not covered in this document.



The parties agree that deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain. We have therefore agreed that there will need to be:
a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes;

arrangements that will protect those on low incomes from the effect of public sector pay constraint and other spending constraints; and

protection of jobs by stopping Labour’s proposed jobs tax.
The parties agree that a plan for deficit reduction should be set out in an emergency budget within 50 days of the signing of any agreement; the parties note that the credibility of a plan on deficit reduction depends on its long-term deliverability, not just the depth of immediate cuts. New forecasts of growth and borrowing should be made by an independent Office for Budget Responsibility for this emergency budget.

The parties agree that modest cuts of 6 billion to non-front line services can be made within the financial year 2010-11, subject to advice from the Treasury and the Bank of England on their feasibility and advisability. Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates. Other policies upon which we are agreed will further support job creation and green investment, such as work programmes for the unemployed and a green deal for energy efficiency investment.

The parties agree that reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners.



The parties agree that a full Spending Review should be held, reporting this Autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.

The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments. The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place.

We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.

The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury.

The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.

The parties commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.

We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.



The parties agree that the personal allowance for income tax should be increased in order to help lower and middle income earners. We agree to announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes. This will be funded with the money that would have been used to pay for the increase in Employee National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives, as well as revenues from increases in Capital Gains Tax rates for non-business assets as described below. The increase in Employer National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives will go ahead in order to stop Labour’s jobs tax. We also agree to a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to 10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective.

We agree that this should take priority over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax. We also agree that provision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement.

The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty; a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.



The parties agree that reform to the banking system is essential to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to sustain the recovery and to protect and sustain jobs.

We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We agree that ensuring the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth and should be a core priority for a new government, and we will work together to develop effective proposals to do so. This will include consideration of both a major loan guarantee scheme and the use of net lending targets for the nationalised banks.

The parties wish to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this would take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

The parties agree that the regulatory system needs reform to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis. We agree to bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.

The parties also agree to rule out joining the European Single Currency during the duration of this agreement.



We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit. We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.



The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.
The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the Parliament.

The parties agree to reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.
We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’.

The parties agree to the implementation of the Calman Commission proposals and the offer of a referendum on further Welsh devolution.

The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.

The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance.



The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. We agree to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.

We agree to implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.

The parties agree to end all existing welfare to work programmes and to create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.

We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work should be referred to the aforementioned newly created welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 should be referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.

The parties agree to realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.

We agree that the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes should be reformed to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings in lower benefit expenditure.

We agree that receipt of benefits for those able to work should be conditional on the willingness to work.



Schools

We agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure:
that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand;

that all schools have greater freedom over curriculum; and,

that all schools are held properly accountable.
Higher education

We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:
increase social mobility;

take into account the impact on student debt;

ensure a properly funded university sector;

improve the quality of teaching;

advance scholarship; and,

attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.



We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.



The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:
A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.

The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

Further regulation of CCTV.

Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.


The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy, including:
The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters.

The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs.

Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.

The creation of a green investment bank.

The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.

Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs.

Measures to encourage marine energy.

The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard.

The establishment of a high-speed rail network.

The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow.

The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.

The replacement of the Air Passenger Duty with a per flight duty.

The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.

Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.

Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.

Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Continuation of the present Government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.

We are agreed that we would seek to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the Climate Change Committee.
Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they receive no public subsidy.
We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.


This process will involve:
the government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament;

pecific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesman will speak against the planning statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and

clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.



Some interesting points in there that I haven't seen picked out by the press yet, like the cancellation of HIPs and the mandating of a national recharging network for electric cars, a commission to look at the West Lothian problem, and a referendum on further devolution in Wales.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th May 10, 10:02 AM
I don't think Max claimed it was in the proposals per se, he just knows that they're going to have to cut shitloads of something, and social workers and the mentally ill are usually soft targets, and tend to be ignored by the press until something goes horribly wrong.

^^this^^

Its not scaremongering honesty its probably what will happen. The money has to come from somewhere and just cutting the inflated beaurocracy isnt going to cover it all.

Further devolution for Wales!!! And who is going to pay for that?

HappyOldGuy
12th May 10, 10:26 AM
a referendum on further devolution in Wales.
Where do they go from here? Prions?

I dunno, from the cheap seats it seems like the sort of broad outline that would make me happy. The questions will be what gets cut and how serious will they be about civil liberties when they are actually ruling.

Cullion
12th May 10, 11:20 AM
There's one thing that makes me feel good about the civil liberties part beyond the avowed social liberalism of the younger conservatives and the Lib Dems:

Most of the 'big brother' stuff they've talked about scrapping would also have very expensive in terms of IT infrastructure and scanning hardware to implement, and I would expect expensive things which even the left-wing voters don't like are going to be at the top of the cut-list these days.

honesty
12th May 10, 11:29 AM
^^this^^

Its not scaremongering honesty its probably what will happen. The money has to come from somewhere and just cutting the inflated beaurocracy isnt going to cover it all.

Further devolution for Wales!!! And who is going to pay for that?
Oh noes, they are going to cut money for all the lollipop ladies, people will die!1!!!!11

So, you're just assuming because there is going to be cuts, they are going to do large cuts in the mental health areas. Nice leap of logic. Until they set out how they are going to make those cuts and pay for the 6 billion they are planning, your just jumping at shadow. You are scare mongering.

Now, if you'd said its my belief that its likely to be in these areas because etc., I would have understood. You didn't though.

Cullion. Yeh those systems cost a lot. Isn't it something like 60 million from ID cards alone they are going to save?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th May 10, 11:39 AM
So, you're just assuming because there is going to be cuts, they are going to do large cuts in the mental health areas. Nice leap of logic. Until they set out how they are going to make those cuts and pay for the 6 billion they are planning, your just jumping at shadow. You are scare mongering.

Now, if you'd said its my belief that its likely to be in these areas because etc., I would have understood. You didn't though.?

If the thought of cutting social care scares you then yes I was scare mongering. Historically the public health and education sectors have been targets for cuts. I see no reason why that wont be the case now.

Ms Stirner has already been informed that the communittee college that she works for will be dishing out compulsory redundacies and this is before the real job of cutting the deficit has been put in place!!!


Cullion. Yeh those systems cost a lot. Isn't it something like 60 million from ID cards alone they are going to save?

They would cost alot if they were put into action which they havent. The cuts will come from somewhere.

Where do you think honesty?

Cullion
12th May 10, 12:08 PM
Cullion. Yeh those systems cost a lot. Isn't it something like 60 million from ID cards alone they are going to save?

The proposed ID card system would end up costing billions, more likely.

honesty
12th May 10, 12:34 PM
I seem to remember the amount of 64 million being thrown about for implementation of ID cards. Could be wrong it's been a while since I looked. I've also seen the figure that it would cost about 5 billion over 10 years to actually having ID cards...



If the thought of cutting social care scares you then yes I was scare mongering. Historically the public health and education sectors have been targets for cuts. I see no reason why that wont be the case now.

Ms Stirner has already been informed that the communittee college that she works for will be dishing out compulsory redundacies and this is before the real job of cutting the deficit has been put in place!!!

Well Max Stirner apart from the coalition document promising a real time increase in spending in the NHS. Or that you didnt say that, you said



Liberals Democrats have made a pact with the Conservative party. Lower taxes for poorer people, referendum on PR. Stripping away of social safety net...

And



y'know the bit where the poor unemployed people go crazy and there isnt anywhere to put them

Do you see Max Stirner how those two statements differ from



Historically the public health and education sectors have been targets for cuts. I see no reason why that wont be the case now.

Can you see Max Stirner the first two are statements, the last one an opinion. The last one Max Stirner is fine, the first 2 I have an issue with.

Any decision to offer or force redundencies would have been made months ago in schools, no its going to be the new government cutting money on the first day of their rule doing this. There will have to be cuts yes, but before making sweeping statements lets discuss our thoughts and wait for some facts.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 03:42 AM
OK honesty lets do that. Where do you link the money is going to come from?

Some food for thought http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14040.html

They have actually pledged to cut 6 billion this next finacial year. Do you think this will be enough?

honesty
13th May 10, 05:48 AM
Well in my view a lot of the supposed 6 billion saving will be from money shuffling. For example tax increases in one place to pay for tax cuts in another, like an increase in VAT and a change to the 10p tax band.

I also think that there's probably quite a bit of savings from canceling (or limiting) a number of the big brother projects, like ID cards and the DNA database.

I would bet there would be savings made in the government budget, so pay freezes or voluntary redundancies in government departments for example. Or they could just go with trying to cut the chaff from these departments.

I can see there being budget reductions to county councils. This will probably have a knock on effect on to things like road maintenance and public services.

As they have outlined a real time increase in NHS spending, I don't think the will be cutting the budget, though there may be an attempt to streamline the management etc in the trusts.

I can see spending on education remaining static, though the pledge to reduce class sizes in the coalition document is an interesting one.

Finally cost savings could probably be made in defense by just putting off those expensive projects. Delaying the trident replacement for example will save some money.

See Max Stirner all my personal thoughts, couched as such. Rather than sweeping statements with no facts. Its simple really. Now you have a good. Theres a good boy.

Cullion
13th May 10, 05:59 AM
Couple of questions:-

Does anybody disagree with the proposition that if there isn't a real, substantialy overall budget reduction now, a much larger one will be forced on us later, probably in a more abrupt manner?

For those who agree with the above proposition: What do you think we should cut? And how much? Try and put figures to your proposed cuts using publicly available data.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 06:13 AM
I agree and Trident 20 billion

OOps forgot to mention we are doooomed if we scrap trident.

Cullion
13th May 10, 06:23 AM
Thanks Max.

Let me add another question for everybody:-

How much do you think we need to cut our deficit by (do you think we should try to generate a surplus in order to pay down existing debt, or just increase or debt more slowly?)

Note: If we were to attempt to actually start paying down outstanding debt, we'd need to cut at least 170 billion from the budget this year.

honesty
13th May 10, 06:30 AM
I agree as well, though its a risk as large cuts now could depress the recovery.

I agree with cutting trident, I think that we could use Tomahawk missiles launched from our Astute class subs to replace them. All that would need developing would a nuclear warhead, as the astute already fires tomahawks, and they are relatively cheap. Cancellation of trident would save about 100 billion across its life time (20 years I think?) and the warhead development would only be a fraction of that.

Cullion
13th May 10, 06:51 AM
Large cuts would lower the pressure on our currency and prevent tax increases. Which part of the public sector (which is what the deficit pays for) do you think is going to generate recovery ?

honesty
13th May 10, 07:32 AM
I dont. I'm in general agreement with you, I just think we need to accept that large cuts now could be slightly risky.

Interesting figures I've just heard on the news:
1. A raise of VAT to 20% would generate 12 billion a year.
2. Police overtime cost 400 million last year. Thats up 90% after inflation over the last 10 years.

Cullion
13th May 10, 07:41 AM
So far, if we lose our current nuclear deterrent, cancel all police overtime and increase VAT to 20% we've plugged a 32.4 billion hole in a ~170 billion deficit.

Do we need to cut more ?

honesty
13th May 10, 08:15 AM
I think, if you're going to make massive cuts you may as well go for it all and get the pain out of the way...

Cancel the A400M order, save 2.5 billion. Its a crap plane and doesnt fulfil a useful role, that cant be done with either Hercs or longer range planes already in use.

honesty
13th May 10, 08:22 AM
Oh, and cancel the new frigates being developed at a cost of 130 million. There a bit crap and dont actually fill a role in the modern navy, 30 years ago maybe...

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 08:37 AM
I cant see a Conservative government making drastic defense cuts unfortunatly.

honesty
13th May 10, 08:45 AM
Nor can I, but they should. Our military thinking and purchasing has been in my view stuck in the cold war. We are buying planes and ships based on roles that are no longer necessary.

The new frigate is a perfect example of this. Main role is a sub hunter, but really who's subs are we going to be hunting? No longer Russias... Plus the actual sub hunting killing bit is done by a chopper anyway.

It would be far cheaper and a better use of money to invest in something multi role, like a small chopper carrier, as it could fill this role and be used as a very good base for marines doing things like pirate hunting/guarding.

Cullion
13th May 10, 09:02 AM
If we agree to those cuts, it's another 2.63 billion.

So far we've got rid of our nuclear weapons, cancelled some other defence orders, cancelled all police overtime and increased VAT to 20% on all VATable goods.

So far, the deficit for this year has been cut from about 170 billion to ~135 billion.

Do we need to cut anything else ?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 09:29 AM
Do we need to cut anything else ?

Bankers throats?

Cullion
13th May 10, 09:30 AM
We need to get the money back first.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 09:37 AM
LOL

who do we owe the deficit to?

maybe we could cut their throats?

Cullion
13th May 10, 09:45 AM
http://www.debtbombshell.com/images/gilt-holdings.png

Cullion
13th May 10, 09:47 AM
We could just wait until we've seperated retail banking and investment banking, force a nationalised investment bank to buy all the debt then either refuse to repay it, letting it go bankrupt, or just massively extend the BOEs quantitive easing programme to pay for that debt. Robert Mugabe-style.

honesty
13th May 10, 09:48 AM
Got any suggestions then?

Cut our EU funding, specifically CAP, but then we'd loose the CAP refund... and I dont know the figures...

Cullion
13th May 10, 09:57 AM
We're net contributors to the EU to the tune of about 4-5 billion and there are also costs imposed by EU regulation which cost us, although they're often harder to quantify.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 11:09 AM
Was that a pie chart of whop the deficit is owed to Cullion?

Cullion
13th May 10, 11:11 AM
Yes, I got it from www.debtbombshell.com They say they produced it from figures published by the UK govt's Debt Management Office.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 11:19 AM
how come we owe households money?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th May 10, 11:23 AM
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Fucking interest alone is costing the UK 31 billion!!! Who the fuck are we paying this to?

Cullion
13th May 10, 12:51 PM
how come we owe households money?

Private individuals in the UK lending the govt. money through gilt purchases and the like.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th May 10, 04:18 AM
The UK cant even cover the interest payments on the over 800 billion we owe. 6 billion is nothing

Cullion
14th May 10, 04:29 AM
That's why I voted for the hardest economically right-wing party I could. I don't see any way of getting the deficit under control other than dramatic and painful spending cuts, way beyond the scope of what the coalition are currently talking about.

In the game we played earlier, we got rid of the UK's nuclear capability (and possibly it's UN security council seat with it), probably put the police on strike and cancelled a bunch of other big-ticket defence items and the country was still adding 135 billion a year to it's debt.

If our debt rating is downgraded, it will become even more expensive for us to borrow, thus compounding the problem.

If the IMF has to take control of our public finances in a year or two's time, it will be much harsher than anything UKIP would've done.

The kind of financial discipline that's needed now would involve taking a long hard look at the all the public sector workers with the kind of flakey 'outreach', 'strategic', 'diversity' and 'environmental' titles that have been appearing in the Guardian for the last decade and saying 'do we really need somebody to do that?'. For many, many thousands of said public sector workers (at both national and local level) the answer would be 'No'.

Hundreds of thousands of the people we accept as necessary would probably still have to take serious pay cuts.

To put it in perspective, if we scrapped Trident and completely shut down our entire military, the annual savings would be less than we're currently spending on interest payments. We could leave the country completely defenceless. And I mean completely, and still be sinking further into debt at a rate of well over 100 billion a year.

If you want to solve this problem with taxation, you're going to have to make the recession even harder in the private sector i.e. the part of the economy that actually generates the tax revenue. Private indebtedness is pretty spectacular in the UK too. You'd stifle the economic growth which the outgoing chancellor was (delusionally IMHO) predicting and risk seeing the tax base start shrinking.

Personal bankruptcies are going to explode whatever we do.

The most rational answer here is currently the least publicly acceptable one, but if people hadn't kept delusionally voting Labour, we wouldn't have to have these difficult conversations.

bob
14th May 10, 04:43 AM
wltv12Hx9Bo

Cullion
14th May 10, 04:54 AM
Quite.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th May 10, 05:43 AM
The most rational answer here is currently the least publicly acceptable one.

Refuse to pay the interest?

Cullion
14th May 10, 05:53 AM
Refusing to pay the interest would simply mean that we were forced to cut our deficit to zero, immediately (that's equivalent to shutting down our public health and education systems down and firing all the staff, completely, in one year BTW. Every NHS hospital, doctor's surgery and state school would close), or inflate our currency Mugabe style, because nobody else would lend to us.

Whilst I have little sympathy for the financial services industry, a British debt default would also likely trigger a wave of bank collapses that would make 2008 look like one of those trading blips that gets blamed on 'computer error'.

The credit bubble we are trying to deflate in a controlled manner is larger than any previously experienced by our society.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th May 10, 07:07 AM
We should ban usary, it really fucks up society.

Cullion
14th May 10, 07:13 AM
I don't have a problem with private lending at interest per se, lending money from real savings, with an interest rate that is allowed to go up and down as the balance between savings and demand for credit changes, is a useful service.

But in another thread I'm railing against what I see as fraudulent money creation at the heart of our system of banking and credit. Being allowed to create money out of nothing, or lend money that you don't really have, is what I think fucks up society. And for most people it would be called 'counterfeiting' or 'fraud', but a few well connected institutions have a licence to commit these crimes.

Aba1dVLVSFg

Anyway... the primary problem discussed here is that most people deal with financial abstractions in a childlike manner and want to believe that they can have high public spending without actually paying for it, and Labour pandered to that without shame.

An evil, counterfeiting, fraudulent banker can't get you into debt if you don't borrow the money in the first place.

This kind of socialism is nothing more than the art of winning popularity contests using other people's money, and it always collapses.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th May 10, 07:23 AM
Basically interest is crippling the UK and you dont have a problem with that?

Cullion
14th May 10, 07:32 AM
Yes, of course I do. But 'make it illegal for people to lend each other money' is not a sane solution to the problem. Reread my last post and listen to Ezra's poem.

It's crippling us because our left-wing government borrowed the money and blew it on stuff that didn't generate a return. And because at no point did these 'socialists' question whether our system of credit creation was just. They just thought up stuff they thought would make them popular and then financed it through borrowing and confiscating a bit more money from the productive working and middle classes.

Repudiating the debt would not mean we didn't have to make savage cuts, it would mean we had to make much larger cuts, immediately.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th May 10, 07:38 AM
Well it wouldnt need borrowing if it hadnt been concentrated by greedy sociopathic interest grabbing bankers in the first place would it?

What cuts would you make Cullion?

(Nice bit of Ezra there thanks for that.)

Cullion
14th May 10, 09:39 AM
Well it wouldnt need borrowing if it hadnt been concentrated by greedy sociopathic interest grabbing bankers in the first place would it?

Yes, it would at Labour's rate of public expenditure.



What cuts would you make Cullion?

I'd start in this order and stop when our credit rating (as expressed as the price of insuring against british debt default) showed 6 months of steady improvement.

i) Recapitalise the banking system by printing new money, whilst simultaneously increasing the capital reserve requirements, possibly going all the way to 100% reserve requirement. Cease all tax-payer transfers to the banks. Any bank going bust from now on is on it's own.

ii) I'd leave the EU and start repealing any EU-originated laws which I thought likely to be hampering our economic growth.

iii) I'd consider dropping Trident in favour of a cheaper nuclear option because I don't think we're going to need supersonic ICBMs to get through the defences of the people we need to intimidate over the next couple of decades.

iv) I'd cut public sector pay from the top down, so the least well paid took the smallest cuts (probably no cut for anybody earning under 20k a year).

v) I'd close all public final salary pension scheme to new entrants. This will only help in the longest term, but it needs to be done some time.

vi) I'd leave the EU. Twice.

vii) I'd close the regional development agencies and have a holocaust of quangos.

viii) Cease all foreign aid payments immediately (sorry got our own problems).

ix) Withdraw from Afghanistan.

x) Close the benefits and public housing system to new entrants who don't have UK passports unless they've been honourably discharged from the British armed forces or have children with British passports.

xi) Start having a hard think about whether there were treatments which are currently offered on the NHS which may be 'non-essential'.

xii) Start closing down politically correct sinecures. Local government jobs with titles like 'diversity..' or 'outreach..' the Commission for Racial Equality etc..
Sorry, they're just not essential services and I don't think that many of these roles were ever needed. Race relations has been turned into a taxpayer funded industry in the UK.

Everybody would hate me but if I was allowed to do it we'd all be substantially wealthier 10 years from now.

Adouglasmhor
14th May 10, 11:32 AM
I don't think it would save a lot, but it is a way of promoting a shift in public sector thinking. Make managers personally responsible for haulage costs if they don't get something delivered to the correct place first time. I have had some fucktard from a carrier trying to deliver pallet loads of paperwork for schools from the Scottish Office (central government)to my office block in Motherwell because it is the Council HQ, the Education Department head office (and distribution team) is in a Town 16 miles away, so not only do I have to arrange carriage or send the stuff back to Edinburgh for them to rearrange carriage, stuff is delayed getting to Schools, often the the dozy twats send it out before a holiday.

If middle and senior management were accountable for shit like this and TBH not just haulage all wastage so our customers get best value, it would cut a chunk out of wastage.