Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Labour would have to make 80% of the Coalition Cuts?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-03-2011, 22:29
dageshi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 516

I just heard that on Radio4 from the Guardians political correspondent no less. He said had labour come into power they'd have to be making 80% of the coalitions cuts in order to halve the deficit over one parliament.

Either I seriously misheard in which case I put my hands up or labours constant haranguing about the cuts is a joke, 80%!
dageshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-03-2011, 22:37
MegaWhat?
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Jasmine Harman, (I wish)
Posts: 1,291
I guess you haven't wised up to the game that is politics then?
MegaWhat? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 22:38
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 30,103
Yes - so the question is what 80% of the cuts the Coalition has implemented would Labour also have implemented. If Labour hadn't implemented these cuts they would have broken their manifesto commitment - for which Dave and Ed have been criticising the LDs for for months.

Someone really should ask Balls and Milliband this question - their rank opportunism over the cuts is breathtaking!

PS This is the Guardian saying this - and the figures are correct.
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 22:41
Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hackney, London
Posts: 3,294
They'd also have to make them for longer and/or raise taxes as well.
Ben is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 22:45
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 82,591
I just heard that on Radio4 from the Guardians political correspondent no less. He said had labour come into power they'd have to be making 80% of the coalitions cuts in order to halve the deficit over one parliament.

Either I seriously misheard in which case I put my hands up or labours constant haranguing about the cuts is a joke, 80%!
You heard it said. I am listening to The Week in Wesminster and I imagine that's what you were listening to.
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 22:51
Rafer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Missing
Posts: 10,719
It works out that the difference between the coalitions cuts and labour's proposed cuts is about 2 billion. 14 billion and 16 billion respectively. All those who marched with Ed and co yesterday should still be protesting had Labour won the election. But as Labour is the unions party and the march was organised by the unions. It would never have happened if we had a labour government. It's simple opportunism. Ed gets a boost in the polls and the gullible masses buy into the big lie that everything would be so much better under Labour and it's the evil tories and their ideological cut that are to blame.
Rafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 22:58
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 26,216
I just heard that on Radio4 from the Guardians political correspondent no less. He said had labour come into power they'd have to be making 80% of the coalitions cuts in order to halve the deficit over one parliament.

Either I seriously misheard in which case I put my hands up or labours constant haranguing about the cuts is a joke, 80%!
If the coalition aim to eliminate the deficit over the parliament and New labour were only going to halve it I can't quite see how they'd have to make 80% of the cuts.

I realise I may be misthinking this, but I'd like to see some figures.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:08
Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hackney, London
Posts: 3,294
Because they're talking about different things.

The Tories said they would eliminate the structural deficit (which accounts for about 65% of the total.

Labour said they would halve the deficit as a whole.
Ben is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:28
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: preferably on my Harley
Posts: 9,335
I doubt very much that Labour would have branded the unemployed, the poor, the disabled, and the sick, as 'scroungers' nor would they have scapegoated them to the point where the genuinely sick and disabled are now being attacked in the street, and many genuine cases are now ashamed to admit they need help,
and ALL done deliberately and cynically to deflect attention away from those who got us into a mess in the first place,

There are many people in this country who now believe that benefit claimants caused the defecit, that the vast majority of benefit claims are fraudulent, that there are enough jobs for every man and woman in the country, every single person on the dole is "workshy"
and that cutting all benfit payments will be a 'cure' for everything that is wrong,

this has been done deliberately by this government and history will condemn them for it,
Do I think life would be 'sunshine and roses' under a Labour government?
Of course not, but I DO believe that the phrase "all in it together" would have far more truth to it than the blatant LIE it so obviously is now.
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:33
Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hackney, London
Posts: 3,294
Hippy, you must be reading very different news from me.

It's no secret that some on the right have always taken a very dim view of the welfare state but I have yet to see a government policy that is anything close an attack on anyone.

The changes to DLA have been coming since before the coalition came in and some seem to be overzealous to say the least. I think some people are seeing rather more what they WANT to see from a Tory government rather than what is actually happening.
Ben is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:33
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 26,216
Because they're talking about different things.

The Tories said they would eliminate the structural deficit (which accounts for about 65% of the total.

Labour said they would halve the deficit as a whole.
Thank you very much, the whole debate makes much more sense to me now.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:40
tysonstorm
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mount Olympus aka Sunderland
Posts: 23,413
It works out that the difference between the coalitions cuts and labour's proposed cuts is about 2 billion. 14 billion and 16 billion respectively. All those who marched with Ed and co yesterday should still be protesting had Labour won the election. But as Labour is the unions party and the march was organised by the unions. It would never have happened if we had a labour government. It's simple opportunism. Ed gets a boost in the polls and the gullible masses buy into the big lie that everything would be so much better under Labour and it's the evil tories and their ideological cut that are to blame.
That is basically it.
tysonstorm is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:44
Biffo the Bear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Existential hell
Posts: 23,850
That is basically it.
It's not though. With longer term cuts, we'd have eventually reached a point where growth started to increase, meaning more income for the government through corporation and income tax collected, meaning that a lot of the projected cuts in a long-term strategy could have been scaled back or cancelled altogether as we naturally reached a break-even point.
Biffo the Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:48
dageshi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 516
Because they're talking about different things.

The Tories said they would eliminate the structural deficit (which accounts for about 65% of the total.

Labour said they would halve the deficit as a whole.
If I've understood you correctly then the basic difference between the coalitions position and Labours position is 15%?

The coalition are cutting 15% more than labour intended too?
dageshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:52
Capablanca
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4,623
I doubt very much that Labour would have branded the unemployed, the poor, the disabled, and the sick, as 'scroungers' nor would they have scapegoated them to the point where the genuinely sick and disabled are now being attacked in the street, and many genuine cases are now ashamed to admit they need help,
and ALL done deliberately and cynically to deflect attention away from those who got us into a mess in the first place,
I'm sorry, but I think your dislike of the Tories is somewhat prejudicing your judgement.

I think you're confusing the Daily Mail with the government. Personally I haven't seen any Midsomer Murders fans out beating benefit claimants up in the street.

Where on Earth do you get this stuff from?
Capablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2011, 23:52
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: preferably on my Harley
Posts: 9,335
Hippy, you must be reading very different news from me.

It's no secret that some on the right have always taken a very dim view of the welfare state but I have yet to see a government policy that is anything close an attack on anyone.

The changes to DLA have been coming since before the coalition came in and some seem to be overzealous to say the least. I think some people are seeing rather more what they WANT to see from a Tory government rather than what is actually happening.
Acually happening or not, it IS very much the 'mood' in many areas of the country at the moment,
You only have to visit this forum and others to be able to see that there is a very real and growing undercurrent of division and anger 'out there' at the moment, and that is 'real' enough,
it's been a long time, if ever, since I have felt such a 'mood' in the country, perhaps the closest I can remember would be at the height of the poll tax days (and we know how that ended) I feel that the current mood is worse than that, and will get even more embittered and entrenched before it's over.
It's going to get nasty.
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:00
glory1986
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,087
It's not though. With longer term cuts, we'd have eventually reached a point where growth started to increase, meaning more income for the government through corporation and income tax collected, meaning that a lot of the projected cuts in a long-term strategy could have been scaled back or cancelled altogether as we naturally reached a break-even point.
Good post.

Cutting too much too quickly (particularly front loading cuts in local government spending for example) stifles economic growth, which is the very thing that is needed to increase tax revenues, help reduce the deficit and help take the country forward again.

Unfortunately, some cuts would have had to be made by whoever was in government now. I don't happen to agree with people who believe that no cuts at all were needed and somehow, tax increases and growth on their own can deal with their deficit (though those two factors are very important in my view in dealing with the deficit. Some cuts (carefully planned, not just randomly made) to a certain extent can make a contribution to deficit reduction without significantly harming economic growth.

Labour's policy of halving the deficit is sensible and is about right. It could have been done at a more reasonable pace where the economy could have absorbed at least some of the effects of the decrease in public spending. Of course, even that wouldn't have been easy but it was something that would have been more accepted and understood.

As it is now though, the present government's economic strategy is ill thought out, ridiculous and ideologically based and the detrimental consquences are starting to now be felt as was shown in the 4th quarter of 2010 when the economy contracted by 0.6% and the full effects of the cuts hadn't really even be felt or come into force in that period of time.
glory1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:01
Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hackney, London
Posts: 3,294
Oh come on - it's bad enough to condemn a government for cutting spending when it is forced to. To then condemn them for a "perceptible mood" is perhaps taking the power of the government a little too far.
Ben is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:04
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: preferably on my Harley
Posts: 9,335
I'm sorry, but I think your dislike of the Tories is somewhat prejudicing your judgement.

I think you're confusing the Daily Mail with the government. Personally I haven't seen any Midsomer Murders fans out beating benefit claimants up in the street.

Where on Earth do you get this stuff from?
There were a few posts in a thread about benefit cheats on here, in one of those a poster claimed to have been verbally abused in the street for using a stick, Blue badge holders have been abused because they don't 'look' disabled,

there was a documentary on TV a few months back highlighting the issue, one guy, a wheelchair user, had been punched in a pub, they did a hidden camera thing, and some of the comments and attitudes he had to put up with were shocking, MOST of them were people calling him a benefit cheat, or scrounger, or similar,
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:08
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 6,572
There are many people in this country who now believe that benefit claimants caused the defecit, that the vast majority of benefit claims are fraudulent, that there are enough jobs for every man and woman in the country, every single person on the dole is "workshy"
and that cutting all benfit payments will be a 'cure' for everything that is wrong,
Those people would be idiots, who cares what they think? But, for what it's worth, people were saying this long before Labour lost power.

People are stupid to assume that benefit claimants are all to blame, just like those who put all the blame on bankers. There were loads of reasons, and just as we need to clamp down the financial institutions, we do also need to clamp down on benefits. Clamp down, not axe or reduce for everyone.

We need to ensure that there's money to pay the genuine people, so for every person claiming illegally, that should protect those that need the money. I suspect the genuine claimants are actually happy that things are being tightened up.

If we can stop people being able to claim illegally, the stigma attached to those who do will be reduced or eliminated too.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:11
Capablanca
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4,623
There were a few posts in a thread about benefit cheats on here, in one of those a poster claimed to have been verbally abused in the street for using a stick, Blue badge holders have been abused because they don't 'look' disabled,

there was a documentary on TV a few months back highlighting the issue, one guy, a wheelchair user, had been punched in a pub, they did a hidden camera thing, and some of the comments and attitudes he had to put up with were shocking, MOST of them were people calling him a benefit cheat, or scrounger, or similar,
So you're happy to think the government condones this sort of moronic behaviour because it includes Tories?
Capablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:19
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 6,572
Thanks to the web, forums, Twitter, Facebook and the Daily Mail, it's certainly a lot easier to rant, whinge and get outraged by just about anything.

I am not sure that, beyond the mob mentality that can come with having an event like the recent 'protests', we're really that much more angry now than we were years ago. It's really just a small number of people, in the grand scheme of things, often involving students who - when they start working, earning money and PAYING TAXES, suddenly change their outlook on life (consider it selling out, or waking up!)

People just used to moan at home or in the pub before, with nobody else batting an eyelid.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:24
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 30,103
I doubt very much that Labour would have branded the unemployed, the poor, the disabled, and the sick, as 'scroungers' nor would they have scapegoated them to the point where the genuinely sick and disabled are now being attacked in the street, and many genuine cases are now ashamed to admit they need help,
and ALL done deliberately and cynically to deflect attention away from those who got us into a mess in the first place,
So you have forgotten about Labour's planned reforms of the benefit system then?

Are you seriously blaming the Coalition 'for the sick and disabled being attacked in the street'. Where is your evidence that the sick and disabled 'are being attacked in the street' anyway.

More hyperbole that is not supported by the evidence!
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:28
dageshi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 516
Good post.

Cutting too much too quickly (particularly front loading cuts in local government spending for example) stifles economic growth, which is the very thing that is needed to increase tax revenues, help reduce the deficit and help take the country forward again.

Unfortunately, some cuts would have had to be made by whoever was in government now. I don't happen to agree with people who believe that no cuts at all were needed and somehow, tax increases and growth on their own can deal with their deficit (though those two factors are very important in my view in dealing with the deficit. Some cuts (carefully planned, not just randomly made) to a certain extent can make a contribution to deficit reduction without significantly harming economic growth.

Labour's policy of halving the deficit is sensible and is about right. It could have been done at a more reasonable pace where the economy could have absorbed at least some of the effects of the decrease in public spending. Of course, even that wouldn't have been easy but it was something that would have been more accepted and understood.

As it is now though, the present government's economic strategy is ill thought out, ridiculous and ideologically based and the detrimental consquences are starting to now be felt as was shown in the 4th quarter of 2010 when the economy contracted by 0.6% and the full effects of the cuts hadn't really even be felt or come into force in that period of time.
Glory, Biffo the entire point of this thread is that were Labour in power now they'd have to set out a credible plan to cut spending or raise taxes to 80% of what the coalition are doing, over this parliament!

I don't see how labour can continue to oppose every single cut without offering a credible alternative. Especially when the position between the coalition and labour is 20% vs 50% which I think was the general impression that most people had.
dageshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2011, 00:36
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 16,217
[quote=OLD HIPPY GUY;49059684]Acually happening or not, it IS very much the 'mood' in many areas of the country at the moment,You only have to visit this forum and others to be able to see that there is a very real and growing undercurrent of division and anger 'out there' at the moment, and that is 'real' enough,
it's been a long time, if ever, since I have felt such a 'mood' in the country, perhaps the closest I can remember would be at the height of the poll tax days (and we know how that ended) I feel that the current mood is worse than that, and will get even more embittered and entrenched before it's over.
It's going to get nasty.[/QUOTE]

Actually I feel you are misinformed. I work in a place where benefits are given out to fit, able and young people who call their payouts as "wages" and then bound off happily with 300 to spare, their rent and council tax all paid for and more spare cash in a week that I have left and I work for a living.

On the flipside, I see struggling people who can't walk, can hardly see, people who are genuinely depressed because they want to work but can't a job bevause they can't afford to learn to drive or similar. These people are frustrated because they really are struggling on a pittance.

The mood of the nation is, I believe, that the latter group of people I described are helped far more while the lazy gits are given only a tiny amount for food and electric rather than what they get at present.

You under-estimate the intelligence of people. No one believes that the genuinely needy should be left without state help. If you need help, you should rightly get help.

But if you choose not to go to work, not to find a job. Then that's your choice. You should be able to fund that choice of lifestyle yourself.

If things are going to get nasty as you suggest, then it's evidence that we live in a society that wants to take, take take but are not prepared to give. That will be Labours legacy, not the Coalitions policies. ,
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:12.