Options

David Cameron - New Year Message

occyoccy Posts: 65,188
Forum Member
✭✭
David Cameron has said that 2011 will be a tough year. More doom and gloom to come.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12097226
«134

Comments

  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    occy wrote: »
    David Cameron has said that 2011 will be a tough year. More doom and gloom to come.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12097226

    I guess that we all knew that - the government has told us clearly over several months what the problems are and how they intend to solve them.

    Another slant is given in today's Daily Telegraph -

    "In one respect, Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, had it about right in his new year message; for many people, 2011 is going to feel "horrible". Around 60,000 public sector workers will lose their jobs, and across the economy as a whole, living standards are likely to fall. Growth will be sluggish, if not negative in some areas. Inflation will remain high, so real wages will fall. Meanwhile, the Government will struggle to get on top of the deficit."

    But that's where Mr Barber's grasp on reality ends. Both he and the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, seem to believe that with different policies, the coming adjustment can somehow be avoided. In so arguing, the Left has descended into fantasy.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/8232354/For-many-itll-be-a-very-unhappy-financial-new-year.html
  • Options
    J LeninJ Lenin Posts: 3,228
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why on earth have they descended into fantasy for having an alternative view? If you think that then I also must be a fantasist. Never thought myself as that. I do not agree with how this government is trying to deal with our problems - too much and too quickly and with a distinct lack of compassion.
  • Options
    tysonstormtysonstorm Posts: 24,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    occy wrote: »
    David Cameron has said that 2011 will be a tough year. More doom and gloom to come.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12097226

    We can cut, copy and paste his message for the next 5 years or so. :D
  • Options
    jim_ukjim_uk Posts: 13,280
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    J Lenin wrote: »
    Why on earth have they descended into fantasy for having an alternative view? If you think that then I also must be a fantasist. Never thought myself as that. I do not agree with how this government is trying to deal with our problems - too much and too quickly and with a distinct lack of compassion.

    We can't afford compassion and the longer we take to clear up Labours mess the more it will cost, leaving even less for services. Those on the left need to wake up and at least try to understand the unholy mess the country is in.
  • Options
    smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    jim_uk wrote: »
    We can't afford compassion and the longer we take to clear up Labours mess the more it will cost, leaving even less for services. Those on the left need to wake up and at least try to understand the unholy mess the country is in.

    I assume you mean the mess left by the banks that was mainly cleared up by Labour during the recession?

    If you can't afford compassion, then I am truely sorry for you.

    Hope you have a good new year
  • Options
    J LeninJ Lenin Posts: 3,228
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jim_uk wrote: »
    We can't afford compassion and the longer we take to clear up Labours mess the more it will cost, leaving even less for services. Those on the left need to wake up and at least try to understand the unholy mess the country is in.

    This stuff about Labour's mess is just alot of old tosh. Most Western countries are experiencing an economic nightmare at the moment. To suggest that those on the left do not understand that the country has problems is simply disingenious. To constantly trot out the same old mantra that this is all Labour's fault as the right does simply does not wash. I even heard Clegg come out with this stuff the other day - I wonder what he would have said had there been a realistic chance of a coalition with Labour? - which his party would have jumped at.

    When the recession hit the Tories were running about like headless chickens - they had no solutions so it begs a certain question - what state would we be in if the Tories had been in power?

    The Tories are cutting with relish yet they find money to support Ireland - they find money for a new experimental education system in England and Wales without any evidence that there will be an improvement in standards.

    It is easy to say we cannot afford compassion when you are not the one about to become redundant or even continue to work in a department where the cuts are going to make any meaningful service a joke.

    I find people like Osborne lack compassion - he himself has never had to and will never have to struggle for anything. The cuts will have no effect on him whatsoever. We are all in this together - I don't think so.
  • Options
    clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I assume you mean the mess left by the banks that was mainly cleared up by Labour during the recession?

    If you can't afford compassion, then I am truely sorry for you.

    Hope you have a good new year

    The structural deficit was not created by the banks. We are paying the price for living beyond our means.
  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    clinch wrote: »
    The structural deficit was not created by the banks. We are paying the price for living beyond our means.

    Indeed, as a nation we are. All the people who mortgaged and remortgaged to fund a designer lifestyle and those who spent recklessly on credit cards or who invested in "buy to let" or who arranged "self-certificate" mortgages for themselves must really be feeling the consequences right now. They chose to do this, no one dragged them into the banks to borrow foolishly.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    J Lenin wrote: »
    This stuff about Labour's mess is just alot of old tosh. Most Western countries are experiencing an economic nightmare at the moment. To suggest that those on the left do not understand that the country has problems is simply disingenious. To constantly trot out the same old mantra that this is all Labour's fault as the right does simply does not wash. I even heard Clegg come out with this stuff the other day - I wonder what he would have said had there been a realistic chance of a coalition with Labour? - which his party would have jumped at.

    When the recession hit the Tories were running about like headless chickens - they had no solutions so it begs a certain question - what state would we be in if the Tories had been in power?

    The Tories are cutting with relish yet they find money to support Ireland - they find money for a new experimental education system in England and Wales without any evidence that there will be an improvement in standards.

    It is easy to say we cannot afford compassion when you are not the one about to become redundant or even continue to work in a department where the cuts are going to make any meaningful service a joke.

    I find people like Osborne lack compassion - he himself has never had to and will never have to struggle for anything. The cuts will have no effect on him whatsoever. We are all in this together - I don't think so.

    Good post
  • Options
    katkimkatkim Posts: 10,271
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A Conservative who didn't enter politics to make cuts? :eek::confused::D That comes across as protesting a bit too much if you ask me, and I now have an image of Dave pleading with the public, 'please don't hate me!'

    Anyway, I don't think the question is whether the cuts should be made or not, which this message seems to focus on. It's how/when/where the cuts made, which has caused the controversy and I think we're all waiting to see if Cameron has got it right and if his optimism will bear fruit or not.

    I'm not quite sure that I believe that the UK economy is out of the danger zone either - growth is still too sluggish, certain sections are still on their knees, unemployment is set to soar, and I doubt anyone can claim that the extremely fragile economies in Europe won't have an impact on our economy if/when they go tits up. Optimism, fine. However, the overly positive language isn't sitting too right with me. I'm not seeing or feeling the back-clapping success right now.

    I'm pleased to see that job creation and support for small businesses will be Cameron's focus in the New Year (about time!) but when are we going to hear the details of this 'credible plan'? rather than 'the private sector will be ok if we leave them to it, and will save us all!' especially since that rhetoric is clearly not the case.

    I suppose the New Year message is all about PR, but given the state we're in, I could do with less of that. My reaction is MEH.
  • Options
    jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    2011 is the year in which the cuts will start so it isn't going to be a bundle of laughs. However with a defict of £156b from 2009-10 and much the same in 2010-11 we will have borrowed over £300b in 2 years to maintain the level of public spending so it is either carry on borrowing or make a start on doing something about it. Thankfully the coalition are adopting the latter course.
  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    2011 is the year in which the cuts will start so it isn't going to be a bundle of laughs. However with a defict of £156b from 2009-10 and much the same in 2010-11 we will have borrowed over £300b in 2 years to maintain the level of public spending so it is either carry on borrowing or make a start on doing something about it. Thankfully the coalition are adopting the latter course.


    Hear hear!:)
  • Options
    alanr74alanr74 Posts: 4,684
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    2011 is the year in which the cuts will start so it isn't going to be a bundle of laughs. However with a deficit of £156b from 2009-10 and much the same in 2010-11 we will have borrowed over £300b in 2 years to maintain the level of public spending so it is either carry on borrowing or make a start on doing something about it. Thankfully the coalition are adopting the latter course.

    The sooner we get rid of our deficit the better in my books. Then of course we have the problem of our debt, that is like a leech draining us of money.

    The question is, how do we rid ourselves of the debt next. Are we going to inflate our way out of it, over the next ten years. I certainly can see a 4% inflation rate as the norm, while interest rates are kept low.
  • Options
    RichievillaRichievilla Posts: 6,179
    Forum Member
    I would take Cameron seriously if the cuts were fair rather than ideological. For a country that is supposedly broke we seem to be able to find plenty of billions to finance unwinnable wars and to send to other countries in foreign aid, but that is all ok as it will be the most vulnerable that suffer the most and we all know they don't count in the eyes of the selfish.
  • Options
    katkimkatkim Posts: 10,271
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Annsyre wrote: »
    Indeed, as a nation we are. All the people who mortgaged and remortgaged to fund a designer lifestyle and those who spent recklessly on credit cards or who invested in "buy to let" or who arranged "self-certificate" mortgages for themselves must really be feeling the consequences right now. They chose to do this, no one dragged them into the banks to borrow foolishly.

    Sorry, I may be reading your post wrong, but all people who arranged 'self-certificate' mortgages?!

    I, along with many other self-employed folk, had a self-certificate mortgages because of a variable/irregular income and not a nice, neat fixed figure every month. However, that does not mean we borrowed out of our means nor that the bank lent foolishly. Of course there are irresponsible cases, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

    In any case, you can also flip that argument around. The 'irresponsible' could have applied all they wanted but could have been turned down by the banks. I think it's more of a case that banks were lending foolishy.

    The banks did not cause the deficit, however, they played their part in causing the credit crunch, which is making businesses suffer now with the lack of small business loans, which in turn weakens economy and employment ,growth which in turn impacts on incoming taxes etc etc. You cannot seperate it all.
  • Options
    jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    alanr74 wrote: »
    The sooner we get rid of our deficit the better in my books. Then of course we have the problem of our debt, that is like a leech draining us of money.

    The question is, how do we rid ourselves of the debt next. Are we going to inflate our way out of it, over the next ten years. I certainly can see a 4% inflation rate as the norm, while interest rates are kept low.

    I take your point as until the deficit is removed tackling the debt is impossible to even make a start on. The government plan to eradicate the defict by the end of this parliament which means the interest on debt payments will continue to increase until then. Assuming the deficit is removed by 2015 then only budget surpluses will reduce the debt and the interest payments which are currently the 4th biggest single item of government expenditure.

    It is quite mindboggling why some are so ambivalent or unconcerned about the state of the public finances and seem to think continuing with large deficits and ever increasing debt and interest payment costs are the way to go.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Anybody spot Miliband's message? No? It was out a couple of days ago.

    People seem to have ignored it. (Uh oh)

    It was full of negatives anyhow so wasn't worth much
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Windy999 wrote: »
    Anybody spot Miliband's message? No? It was out a couple of days ago.

    People seem to have ignored it. (Uh oh)

    It was full of negatives anyhow so wasn't worth much

    He should have been riding huskies or something while he was doing the speech.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    He should have been riding huskies or something while he was doing the speech.

    :D It's his birthday today (I think)

    Happy Birthday Ed!
  • Options
    J LeninJ Lenin Posts: 3,228
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Windy999 wrote: »
    Anybody spot Miliband's message? No? It was out a couple of days ago.

    People seem to have ignored it. (Uh oh)

    It was full of negatives anyhow so wasn't worth much

    Now now - that is not fair. It has been widely reported but he is after all the Leader of the opposition and it will not get the same coverage as the PM's speech.

    As far as negative is concerned - well I'm afraid there is a lot to be negative about.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    J Lenin wrote: »
    Now now - that is not fair. It has been widely reported but he is after all the Leader of the opposition and it will not get the same coverage as the PM's speech.

    As far as negative is concerned - well I'm afraid there is a lot to be negative about.

    OK - I give you your first point (just because it is New Year's Eve ;)). But he could have pointed out the couple of victories Labour have had - all negative will scare the electorate away

    (I'll stop there though otherwise I'll take the thread off-topic)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Windy999 wrote: »
    :D It's his birthday today (I think)

    Happy Birthday Ed!

    I think it was Christmas Eve, not New Year's Eve. Rank time of year for a birthday, all the kids at school used to get 'joint' presents for birthday and Christmas!
  • Options
    MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    katkim wrote: »
    Anyway, I don't think the question is whether the cuts should be made or not, which this message seems to focus on. It's how/when/where the cuts made, which has caused the controversy


    Well given that every suggested reduction in Public Spending has been attacked by certain posters on this forum (one even complained when publicly funded pop concerts were being stopped), I'm not sure that everyone shares your view that cuts should be made at all.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    I think it was Christmas Eve, not New Year's Eve. Rank time of year for a birthday, all the kids at school used to get 'joint' presents for birthday and Christmas!

    You're right - belated greetings then

    Thanks
  • Options
    J LeninJ Lenin Posts: 3,228
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    Well given that every suggested reduction in Public Spending has been attacked by certain posters on this forum (one even complained when publicly funded pop concerts were being stopped), I'm not sure that everyone shares your view that cuts should be made at all.

    Of course there will have to be cuts. Chancellor Darling was quite clear about that before the election - the argument is where, when, how and who.

    I hate to say this but cuts are not a monopoly of the right. What I feel however is that the recession has given the Tories the opportunity to do what they wanted to do anyway - cut back the state and the public sector.
Sign In or Register to comment.