Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

He really is an odious little clearing in the woods

His justification to date for these idealogical cuts is to pass blame rather than defend the process he is imposing on us.

I suppose the blueprint for Politics of the future has now been firmly set out in that any sort of manifesto is just a waste of paper.

Clegg - I'm sorry but there are no words that can really describe my contempt for him and his lack of principles. To see him sitting there nodding in agreement to proposals that are 100% different to the Lib Dems over the years and what they signed up for in the run in to the election. He really should resign and put himself forward for re-election on the new policies that he obviously embraces

[Ads]

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4776/smugcunt.jpg' alt='smugcunt.jpg'>

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The most irresponsible, incompetent and to add to that smug looking **** in Britain.

You forgot Tory rocket polisher.

[Risso]

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4776/smugcunt.jpg' alt='smugcunt.jpg'>

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The most irresponsible, incompetent and to add to that smug looking **** in Britain.

More irresponsible and incompetent than Gordon Brown? Such a person does not exist, anywhere in the world.

That gormless **** established the pitiful FSA, sold our gold at a mindblowing loss, and had the debacle of the 10p tax rate. Incompetent doesn't even begin to do him justice.

[Ads]

Yes, but Risso you’re forgetting that Brown was not a Tory rocket polisher

[PauloBarnesi]

Multi-millionaire members of the country's elite ruling class telling us "we are all in this together" does stick in the craw somewhat.

The only “normal" person who has led this country in recent history was John Major. People seemed to be appalled by this normality. Blair came from an elite. Brown came from an elite. All of the leaders of the major political parties come from elites. But to run a country you need some who comes from an elite surely? The possibility that someone ‘normal’ like Sarah Palin might run the USA is pretty scary...

Personally I think the country has been f•••ed for years. You can blame it on the current lot, you can blame it on the last lot, you can blame it on Thatcher, Callaghan, Heath, Wilson, Home Macmillian, Eden, Attlee, etc, etc, but its been a long long decline with multiple reasons. The present lot are just inheriting a mess created long ago. And to be honest I am not sure we can get a grip of it.

[PauloBarnesi]

His justification to date for these idealogical cuts is to pass blame rather than defend the process he is imposing on us.

Are they idealogical or necessary? or perhaps even both?

Perhaps also he learnt a lesson from Labour (and the Conservatives before them). You blame the previous lot for the mess you inherit; from Blairs victory the mantra fro anything negative was “Its the previous lots fault”. Obviously the new government won’t give any credit to the previous one, just as previous governments didn’t

Whether Labour created it or it was the ‘global’ economic situation; we are in a mess? We can agree on that?

[snowychap]

...sold our gold at a mindblowing loss...

What was the cost of the gold which he sold?

[Awol]

490,000 public sector jobs is a lot to lose but spread of four years. Good news for health, education and pensioners, not great news if you're on benefits. Overall spending reduction of 19%.

Be good to see the analysis once the numbers are crunched but on balance it could have been much worse.

[chrissmith921]

**** people who are on benefits.

how about we start looking out for those who actually put in a shift, or have put in a shift (retired) or cant (ill)

those who are on jobseekers - your time has come, lazy ****.

[Chindie]

Not everyone on JSA is a lazy ****.

I suspect you know that though.

[chrissmith921]

im aware of that, but im aware of a hell of a lot who are.

welsh valleys might be prime for it... but i know a lot of people who claim because it means they dont have to go out and work.

[snowychap]

So how does the change to intermediary rents for new social housing tenancies mesh with the change in LHA down to the 30th percentile?

If the intermediary rent is 80% of 'market rate' (by which I assume they mean the median rent) then is that not possibly going to be higher than the maximum LHA amount?

I assume they'll be looking at amending the rules for calculating housing benefit in relation to social housing.

Also interesting that Osborne wasn't able to exactly answer the question of whether this change will only apply to new tenants or to new tenancies (e.g. will it have an impact upon mobility?).

[snowychap]

**** people who are on benefits.

:yawn:

[markavfc40]

28.4% cut to local councils over 4 years is unbelievable. People will feel this on a very local level in terms of care for the elderly, vulnerable children who need help from social services, the closure of libraries, leisure centres, swimming baths etc.

Add to this a 16% cut in the Police budget and people are going to see a lot of changes for the worse on a local level.

[markavfc40]

attack him for his policies not for being rich, it just smacks of envy.

Envy I'd rather not have a penny in my pocket and a pot to piss in than be a multi millionaire and have the morals of that smug bastard.

[chrissmith921]

**** people who are on benefits.

:yawn:

Ah I was looking forward to the usual piles of crap of how 99% of those on job seekers feel really low about it and desperately want to work...

[dundeevilla]

**** people who are on benefits.

Yes, let's see the children of the underclass starving in our streets.

Get a grip.

[Ads]

attack him for his policies not for being rich, it just smacks of envy.

Envy I'd rather not have a penny in my pocket and a pot to piss in than be a multi millionaire and have the morals of that smug bastard.

You forgot to call him a Tory rocket polisher again.

You’re slipping.

[blandy]

Prediction for the most repeated maxim of the day: Spending to return to 2006 levels.

Not sure if it will be that or "these are ideological changes"

There's a really good balanced analysis on page 6 of today's Independent, which explains why cuts are necessary but are ideologically driven link and extract below.

Today's cuts are about more than just today's problems - a new era of lower ambitions for government.. During the past 25-30 years government tax revenues have peaked at around 38 per cent of GDP. Governments of both main parties have sometimes sought to increase the tax take a little but have not succeeded, usually because an economic slowdown cut receipts. But spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP, rising at present to some 48 per cent of GDP – hence the present gap of 11-12 per cent of GDP. Let's say, to keep things simple, that half of that gap will correct itself as the economy comes back to its full potential output. That still leaves another 6 per cent of GDP as the so-called structural deficit, that has to be eliminated. That is share of GDP, not share of public spending, so the cuts in the latter have to be much bigger, say 12-15 per cent of spending. Since more money has to be set aside for extra interest and since some programmes, such as the NHS, are going on growing, the other cuts have to be bigger still.....

It gets worse. It has proved relatively easy to increase productivity in manufacturing and in some private sector services such as supermarkets. But it is much harder to increase productivity in schools and hospitals. If you skimp on staff you are liable to skimp on service.

This is not to claim that there is no fat in public services to be cut, for there is clearly huge waste. Insofar as government productivity can be measured, the Office for National Statistics calculates that productivity may have fallen during the Labour government. That is dreadful, for it means the costs of the public sector have been a big drag on living standards in the economy as a whole. But we should not kid ourselves that it is easy to increase public sector efficiency, for many of the things it does need boots on the ground.

So government, here in the UK but actually everywhere in the developed world, will have to try to do more, but do it with less. But it can't. That is why these spending cuts will, I think, come to be seen as a first stage of a wider retreat. It will start to shed some responsibilities: indeed it is already starting to do so. Welfare and social housing are two clear areas where the Coalition will step back, and we will learn much, much more today.

Look forward 10 years and the pressures will be greater still: our workforce will probably be falling in size; the retired baby boomers will need more care; we will all have to save more for ourselves and rely less on the state; and I am afraid those debts will still be there. This is not a terrible prospect, for we will still be lucky to live in a decent democracy. But it will be a world of diminished ambitions, for politicians as for the rest of us. And it starts today.

[markavfc40]

attack him for his policies not for being rich, it just smacks of envy.

Envy I'd rather not have a penny in my pocket and a pot to piss in than be a multi millionaire and have the morals of that smug bastard.

You forgot to call him a Tory rocket polisher again.

You’re slipping.

I've never called him that but surely most people would take that as a given