TUC protests

[eFestivals]

From a Post-Marxist perspective, I would suggest that those high up in the media can manipulate facts which can be taken as truth. I wouldn't say people are stupid tho.

Nope. It's simply that those people who ARE that dicking stupid think "they'll be torturing terrorists, or at worst innocent Muslims. Neither of those are me".

[llcoolphil]

you either need a lesson in basic number skills, or you need to be reading better and paying more attention.

The cuts AND tax rises proposed by Labour planned to have reduced the deficit by 50% by the end of the parliament.

Edited September 14, 2010 by llcoolphil

[eFestivals]

As Ive explained Im not talking over that length of time - labour claimed they would make an immediate cut of just over 4%, the coalition say 6. The maths isn't difficult.

the maths of that might not be difficult to grasp. The difference that 2% makes won't be either when we're in the shit from the cuts.

Labour din't publically anything, though with the vast inside knowledge you appear to be claiming Im sure you can put some meat on the bones of labour's proposed 50% cuts.

They publicly stated that nothing was ruled out from being cut. Unlike the tories, who guaranteed NHS spending and "aid" spending.

And because NHS spending is such a huge part of govt spending, that's changed the tory cuts from 12% across the board to 25%+ to everything but the NHS - and that's a f**kING HUGE difference.

No inside knowledge required.

Define uproar - what did this uproar look like? And what was the outcome of it?

Lots of ignorant bollox all over the media, banging on about how it would hit the poorest without looking at consequences beyond that.

And the outcome was one of your ConDems claims to sainthood, funnily enough. From Labour.

Did labour guarantee it would be cut? Or would whoever was in government just carry on doing the same thing? Saying 'we aren't going to change what labour has been doing with aid' is hardly outrageous.

But it's not fecking aid, it's money channelled into the pockets of the rich.

Labour said nothing was ruled out. Free money for the rich would certainly be a top Labour target!!

Except that is 100% wrong as a statemnt.

There's f**k all wrong with what I said. The NHS changes planned by your beloved ConDems is a change in payment method ONLY, along with a freedom over where it can be paid (read as: private companies, and not the NHS).

Just to repeat my earlier question - can you show me how labour would have funded the billions in extra spending that the coalition has cut and where would the cuts to reduce the deficit come from?

The coalition have cut f**k all so far, so so far there's no extra spending. The claims you're making of labour are mirrored by the ConDems - talk of cuts but nothing explicitly cut as yet.

And let's be clear - if the government was intent on funnelling cash to private enterprise, the third runway would be an ideal opportunity

It's chicken feed. They have their eyes on a much bigger prize.

And you're suddenly forgetting: some things were going to be cut no matter who won the election. There's no guarantee Labour would have kept that either, it would have been an easy target, because there's no bad consequences onto individuals as there is with other cuts.

Laughing stock with who? As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, the three main parties (especially if labour elect Milliband D) are all cut from the same cloth. You are talking about fiddling round the edges, the main substance remains exactly the same. It's called capitalism. A but less capitalist here and a bit more capitalist there makes NO significant difference. Or are you going to tell me that this is the only way to order society?

Short memory?

A bit less capitalist here and a bit more capitalist there makes school roofs leak. It makes old people die. It makes the sick sicker, and the poor poorer.

Yes, the system itself is f**ked, but it can be more f**ked. And it will be for all but the rich, just like last time the tories were in power.

Don't go thinking Clegg can save you - the coalition agreement has already been shown as so hollow that it's as good as useless for most things. If there's nothing in that agreement then the tories have free reign to make up policy on the spot - as they have done with the NHS - and Clegg has agreed to go along with the full tory plans.

Im not, Im simply pointing out that labour is no less capitalist than the other two. PFI being the absolute perfect example. The ONLY reason that the NHS did well under labour was the amount of finance off the balance sheet that went to private enterprise for decades to come.

Head in the sand.

While PFI is far more expensive, the extra financial impact is still small. After all, if not financed by PFI it would have been financed with govt borrowing, giving profits (lower, but still profits) to private enterprise immediately AND for decades to come.

Yes, Labour are capitalists. As is the country. There's no point being a radical marxist if you want power.

It has nothing to do with defending who I voted for - Im not defending anything. I am pointing out the harsh reality that the three main parties offer no significant difference. If you thionk things would have been better under labour, you have forgotten the last 13 years of government.

No, I've not forgotten the last 13 years of govt. Nor have I done what you have, and forgotten the 18 years prior to that.

The difference is significant. VERY significant. Replacing one bunch of c**ts with an even bigger bunch of c**ts is not the improvement you're fantasising, as you'll come to recognise within 3 years at most.

The UK is a VERY long way from being Greece. What the ConDems are planning is far greater than what's necessary, and we'll all pay the price. Yet some will pay a price 13 times greater than others - and it's not the rich who'll be doing that as even tory think-tanks get to show.

[llcoolphil]

the maths of that might not be difficult to grasp. The difference that 2% makes won't be either when we're in the shit from the cuts.

They publicly stated that nothing was ruled out from being cut. Unlike the tories, who guaranteed NHS spending and "aid" spending.

And because NHS spending is such a huge part of govt spending, that's changed the tory cuts from 12% across the board to 25%+ to everything but the NHS - and that's a f**kING HUGE difference.

No inside knowledge required.

Lots of ignorant bollox all over the media, banging on about how it would hit the poorest without looking at consequences beyond that.

And the outcome was one of your ConDems claims to sainthood, funnily enough. From Labour.

But it's not fecking aid, it's money channelled into the pockets of the rich.

Labour said nothing was ruled out. Free money for the rich would certainly be a top Labour target!!

There's f**k all wrong with what I said. The NHS changes planned by your beloved ConDems is a change in payment method ONLY, along with a freedom over where it can be paid (read as: private companies, and not the NHS).

The coalition have cut f**k all so far, so so far there's no extra spending. The claims you're making of labour are mirrored by the ConDems - talk of cuts but nothing explicitly cut as yet.

It's chicken feed. They have their eyes on a much bigger prize.

And you're suddenly forgetting: some things were going to be cut no matter who won the election. There's no guarantee Labour would have kept that either, it would have been an easy target, because there's no bad consequences onto individuals as there is with other cuts.

Short memory?

A bit less capitalist here and a bit more capitalist there makes school roofs leak. It makes old people die. It makes the sick sicker, and the poor poorer.

Yes, the system itself is f**ked, but it can be more f**ked. And it will be for all but the rich, just like last time the tories were in power.

Don't go thinking Clegg can save you - the coalition agreement has already been shown as so hollow that it's as good as useless for most things. If there's nothing in that agreement then the tories have free reign to make up policy on the spot - as they have done with the NHS - and Clegg has agreed to go along with the full tory plans.

Head in the sand.

While PFI is far more expensive, the extra financial impact is still small. After all, if not financed by PFI it would have been financed with govt borrowing, giving profits (lower, but still profits) to private enterprise immediately AND for decades to come.

Yes, Labour are capitalists. As is the country. There's no point being a radical marxist if you want power.

No, I've not forgotten the last 13 years of govt. Nor have I done what you have, and forgotten the 18 years prior to that.

The difference is significant. VERY significant. Replacing one bunch of c**ts with an even bigger bunch of c**ts is not the improvement you're fantasising, as you'll come to recognise within 3 years at most.

The UK is a VERY long way from being Greece. What the ConDems are planning is far greater than what's necessary, and we'll all pay the price. Yet some will pay a price 13 times greater than others - and it's not the rich who'll be doing that as even tory think-tanks get to show.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Ive already said in this thread we're heading for a double dip recession. Ive already said on these boards that Clegg had a chance and f*cked it. Ive already said on these boards that the coalition are about to screw everybody over. Do you actually read what anyone else writes?

This is a circular not going anywhere discussion now that we'll revisit when we have more real information. We're a month away from revisiting our discussion about interest rates - I said they are going nowhere fast, you said they were. Let's see where we are come october

[eFestivals]

Ive already said in this thread we're heading for a double dip recession. Ive already said on these boards that Clegg had a chance and f*cked it. Ive already said on these boards that the coalition are about to screw everybody over. Do you actually read what anyone else writes?

So, from that you should be able to recognise that it's possible to sort the problems and screw people less!

As I said, the difference between what's happening and what's possible is one of ideology. The cuts are happening as deep as they are because the tories at their heart hate the idea of any govt to restrain them from screwing everyone at any time.

This is a circular not going anywhere discussion now that we'll revisit when we have more real information. We're a month away from revisiting our discussion about interest rates - I said they are going nowhere fast, you said they were. Let's see where we are come october

Then surely you're smart enough to know that you've already lost that argument?

The only hope for keeping interest rates down is from the BoE being given different rules to work from what they're currently working under. Inflation is at 5%, and it's not going to fall back down without the economy being reigned in still further (and further than the cuts to come are going to do!).

[llcoolphil]

So, from that you should be able to recognise that it's possible to sort the problems and screw people less!

As I said, the difference between what's happening and what's possible is one of ideology. The cuts are happening as deep as they are because the tories at their heart hate the idea of any govt to restrain them from screwing everyone at any time.

Edited September 15, 2010 by llcoolphil

[smog]

The Unions at work are getting ready to kick up a stink - lots of emails flying round and Union meetings being organised this week. Hope no one here has kids or is going to our uni this year - not sure if any of the first semesters work will be getting marked any time soon.

[eFestivals]

he proposed, as you did, stopping all defence spending to cut the deficit

I've never proposed such a thing.

I might well have proposed it long in the past because it's immoral, but defo never to do with the deficit.

As I've already pointed out and this just gets to further prove, you're in fantasyland with this discussion.

I said interest rates weren't going up anytime soon back in May, they haven't budged since may but Ive lost the argument? F*ck me Neil, that's some brass neck you have there

They'll have gone up by the end of this year. They'll have sky rocketted by the end of next year. All of which will further hit the economy.

When they do go up will you say "I was only referring to what might happen in May"? Well, I wasn't. The error is your failure to understand what's in front of you.

Just so we have the facts rather than more of your made up figures

And dont start quoting the RPI at me because that isn't the measure the Bank uses

Which I accept is above the BofE's target but most certainly isn't 5%.

Which inflation rate are YOU, I and EVERYONE ELSE paying? CPI or RPI?

It's near enough 5%.

Without the economy being reined in further? You've been telling me for the last two days that unemployment is going to rocket and we're about to have a double dip recession. Given there is also a public sector pay freeze and private sector pay isn't even keeping up with inflation, do you not think all this might actually define 'reined in'? And if not, what would you call 'reined in'?

Im almost, but only almost, embarrassed for you Neil

Unemployment IS going to rocket. There's 600,000 at least to be made unemployed by the public sector, and in the double-dip recession that will cause there won't be new jobs for them in the private sector.

There's f**k all embarrassing in that for me. There's an awful lot that's embarrassing in there for the ConDems.

Get used to it.

[llcoolphil]

I've never proposed such a thing.

I might well have proposed it long in the past because it's immoral, but defo never to do with the deficit.

As I've already pointed out and this just gets to further prove, you're in fantasyland with this discussion.

[eFestivals]

I was referring to your annual remembrance sunday suggestion that we dont have an army.

so nothing to do with the deficit then.

But a very easy way to cure a big chunk of it all the same, now that you mention it. The pay-off for the UK would be massive too!

We were talking about the near future - 6 months covers that I think

so by the end of November you'll be proven wrong by an interest rate rise.

But you don't think this counts as reining in the economy?

Yes.

I've lost the point of this. Reading back, I suspect you've misunderstood what I was initially getting at.

Get used to what? Are you suggesting my vote for the lib dems at the election is some sort of support for this coalition?

Ultimately the facts prove that it was.

(I'd perhaps be as guilty had I chosen to vote)

But anyway, that's not what I'm getting at you about, it's your uncritical support of everything they're doing, as tho there are no alternatives. There are, and they're open to them doing them (some of them, anyway) if they want to do them - such as not making the cuts as deep as they plan to make them. The cuts are going as deep as they are because of ideology, and not necessity.

Because there's that gap between ideology and necessity, that's a space that's game for considered criticism of what they're doing. I'm not seeing it from you, and I'm surprised.

[llcoolphil]

it's your uncritical support of everything they're doing

[eFestivals]

I HAVE NO UNCRITICAL SUPPORT FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING, I AM POINTING OUT THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT AND THAT UNTIL LABOUR ACTUALLY SAY HOW THEY WOULD DO IT, REPEATING 'THEY DONT HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY' IS AN EMPTY GESTURE!

No it wouldn't. Not at the level it's going to happen at.

It's happening at the level that it is because of tory ideology.

[llcoolphil]

No it wouldn't. Not at the level it's going to happen at.

It's happening at the level that it is because of tory ideology.

Edited September 16, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

In a special edition of BBC's Question Time, Andy Burnham said they should be "honest" and admit there would have been "significant" cuts under Labour.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Andy Burnham doesn't speak for the party Phil.

[eFestivals]

Public spending will revert back to a level - in real terms - that it has been for most of the last 13 years.

No it won't. Look at the numbers.

Are we to assume that under labour, public spending was vastly underfunded?

your starting premise is wrong.

Though labour claims that mny of the ideas withinn Camoron's big Society have been nicked from them - ideas about decentralising the state - which leaves us in a predicament over identifying the ideology behind it.

You've fallen for it hook line and sinker. The "big society" is simply the propaganda cover for standard tory ideology.

[llcoolphil]

Andy Burnham doesn't speak for the party Phil.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I was hoping specifically that you would say that so I could point how at odds with each other the leadership candidates are. So Burnham is 100% wrong? Yes or no.

[eFestivals]

Ive looked at the numbers. In real terms it will, in actual cash terms it will be higher. This is fact, not opinion.

with inflationary factors removed it will be lower, significantly lower. The deficit we have now is only a deficit because tax revenues fell off a cliff.

If the economy recovered tomorrow to the level that it was so that tax revenues also did, the deficit would be of a certain level, a level that's easily affordable against GDP. (It's standard for countries to run a deficit).

Yet if the economy recovered tomorrow to the level that it was so that tax revenues also did, with the tory cutting plans the deficit would be of a lower level.

You've not looked at the numbers - or if you have done you've not understood them. I'd guess that what you're going from is what percentage the deficit is to tax revenues, not total spend in £££s.

What you have presented is NOT fact.

The problem you have here Neil is that you actually haven't read the article I posted. If you had you would understand entirely the point I was making and why I said could. But you carry on criticising everything as ideology from a position no less ideological than the one you criticise.

I don't disagree that my view is an ideological one. But also an economic one, from the certain fact that growth comes from investment and not no-investment.

You're trying to claim that the planned tory cuts are of the same level as Labour would have had to cut. It's complete bollox.

Cuts are required, but that doesn't alter the fact that lower cuts equals greater investment from which we get greater growth. And the greater growth we have the sooner that we get the growth that drags is out of things.

I happened to read something this morning which showed that in the first four years of Thatcher our manufactured exports fell by 35%. They've been falling further ever since. Had Thatcher invested in them instead of decimating them, at least some of that reduction wouldn't have happened, and we'd have been in a better economic position ever since.

It's no different this time around.

[lost]

the stimulus argument has been well tested in japan, an identical situation of a bubble bursting and the government spending like mad to prop up the economy raising its debt to gdp ratio from 52% in 1989 to 200% today, it spent the equivalent of $2.1 trillion between 91 -95 on public works but economic studies revealed it resulted in almost zero growth in the wider economy, hence Japan is still stuck with near zero growth and an interest rate of 3:5% would consume its entire tax revenue on debt interest payments, the country is effectively bankrupt.

so the lesson we learn from history is once the stimulus starts it doesn't end because it doesn't work on the wider economy, as we've seen this week, car scrapage scheme ends, sales collapse putting us back in exactly the same position. cutting it will probably result in a double dip but when the alternative is a sovereign debt crisis with possible currency collapse id rather have a wrong coalition than a wrong labour party

[eFestivals]

the stimulus argument has been well tested in japan, an identical situation of a bubble bursting and the government spending like mad to prop up the economy raising its debt to gdp ratio from 52% in 1989 to 200% today, it spent the equivalent of $2.1 trillion between 91 -95 on public works but economic studies revealed it resulted in almost zero growth in the wider economy, hence Japan is still stuck with near zero growth and an interest rate of 3:5% would consume its entire tax revenue on debt interest payments, the country is effectively bankrupt.

so the lesson we learn from history is once the stimulus starts it doesn't end because it doesn't work on the wider economy, as we've seen this week, car scrapage scheme ends, sales collapse putting us back in exactly the same position. cutting it will probably result in a double dip but when the alternative is a sovereign debt crisis with possible currency collapse id rather have a wrong coalition than a wrong labour party

In which case we ain't seen nothing yet, and the 1930s were the age of prosperity. It's a good job you're wrong.

It's a good job that what happened in Japan is nothing like the identical situation that you claim.

There's a big element of living beyond our means within things tho - after all, the world's whole economic system is designed to mask this for the 'developed nations'. And it will always bite us on the arse.

But how big the bite is tho is something that we CAN control.

[llcoolphil]

No. Andy Burnham has a lot of great ideas and I will be majorily dissapointed if he isn't put into a health role in the shadow cabinet. His views on a NHS type system for care homes is fantastic.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

It would help if you understood the policy and knew the difference between social care and care homes. Out of interest, how would you fund this additional tens and tens of billions of spending?

[llcoolphil]

I don't disagree that my view is an ideological one. But also an economic one, from the certain fact that growth comes from investment and not no-investment.

Edited September 17, 2010 by llcoolphil