TUC protests

[eFestivals]

So to clarify. When the coalition guarantee the aid budget, that is the ideological funnelling of public money into private hands, but when labour stimulate the economy by putting public money in private hands, that is investment.

it's the underhandedness of the aid money really being used as a prop for industry I object to.

(I'd guess that it's a way EU member states get around the EU anti-subsidy rules)

Show me labour's plans for cuts so that I can see that it's bollox.

They laid out the level of their cuts long before the election (as did the tories). Have these passed you by?

To clarify - when the tories tell me something, Im falling for it hook, line and sinker but when labour tell you something with even less actuality to back it up, that is fact.

From both (along with the LibDems) there's been little specifics on where the actual cuts are going to fall as yet.

What we do know for certain (if we take both at their word) is that one is going to cut things far harder than the other would have done.

The reason why is ideology. The tories are using the opportunity to attack the existing state structures and procedures, because of their ideological leanings.

When the coalition talk about decentralising parts of the state that is, you tell me, ideology. When labour talk about decentralising parts of the state, is that the same ideology? And what ideologies are we actually talking about?

the tories are not talking about decentralising the state. They are going to decimate it. Many of things that the state is ultimately responsible for at the moment will cease to be the responsibility of the state. It's not the case that every state service can be reduced by 25%, it's the case that many will have to stop being any service at all.

And for some remaining things - very many things, over 50% of the budget - the plan is to try to channel taxpayers money into private pockets for them providing services back to the state, but where democratic accountability is also lower, and often there's zero business risk (because of govt guarantees). And quite often they're offshore companies that pay no UK tax, causing even more of a deficit!

"The Big Society" is simply a cover for saying "the state will no longer be responsible for these things" and "we'll be harder to pin down as responsible for anything that goes wrong".

Remember, the country is being run by a PR man. Those words should make everyone very afraid.

Edited September 17, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

it's the underhandedness of the aid money really being used as a prop for industry I object to.

(I'd guess that it's a way EU member states get around the EU anti-subsidy rules)

Edited September 21, 2010 by llcoolphil

[eFestivals]

So no different whichever government we would have had. Hardly ideology then

I didn't say it was.

So why were the leadership contenders falling out last week about how deep the cuts would have been?

because they're ther new potential leaders, and not the leader - or policies - Labour would have had if they'd won the election.

FFS Phil, turn your brain on.

Labour said it would be x amount without giving a single detail (which is therefore meaningless bollox) and the tories backed away from their plans because they went down in the polls everytime they mentioned the word austerity!

you what?

Yes, Labour didn't give details, but neither did the tories. But the tories explicitly stated (just as Labour did) how deep their cuts would be - and said their cuts would be bigger.

If you think they didn't say that then the error is yours.

So your entire argument is predicated on me taking politicians at their word

at the moment, that's all both of us have to go on for both parties.

Yet you're taking the tories at less than their word but taking Labour at more than their word. Hence the reason you're talking crap!

But the existing state structures and procedures are in desperate need of attacking. Do you suggest that we leave everything as they would be under labour and introduce ID cards? Or is there very justifiable and entirely non-idealogical reason for attacking existing structures and procedures?

Not all state structures are the same.

There things that are clearly unnecessary expenditure, such as ID cards. These can be cut without impact. However, their numbers are (financially) small.

Then there are other things, which will cause some people great hardship, such as benefit cuts. While there's big support for cutting off "scroungers", there's not any way to systematically identify them, and so the result of trying to get at them will be an impact on a far greater number of genuine claimants, which doesn't have big public support ... but does have big tory support.

And then there are statutory obligations. The one I get to hear about (from the missus) on a regular basis is libraries, which are almost always the first thing mentioned in TV political discussions and the like. There is a VERY strong likelihood that some of these statutory obligations will stop being statutory obligations (it perhaps might not be libraries, tho they'll suffer huge cuts all the same). The removal of many of these statutory obligations will decimate the UKs cultural life as we know it, and the standard tories will be cheering from the rooftops at Dave Moron achieving what Thatcher was too timid to tackle.

They are taking spending back to 2006 if every plan comes off - and that is a big if in itself. Brown oversaw a massive expansion in state spending that wasn't matched by an expansion in the size of the nation to warrant it. If you think the cuts coming in are totally wrong, you have no choice but to accept that state spending was too little for the first 9 years of labour government.

They are taking spending waaaaay back beyond the 2006 level.

They are taking the % deficit level back to the 2006 level. It needs hugely greater cuts than the spending level of 2006 because tax revenues have fallen off a cliff, and those cuts will ensure that the tax revenues level remains lower for some time, but when it does ramp back up the spending won't do: this has long been stated by Dave Moron as what he'll do.

Detail are gtfo. 'Things' is not a spending or cutting plan

I can't give you the solid details because the cutting plans haven't been detailed yet.

But you've got more than enough brain to recognise that some services are easier to cut than others, and that some services won't be able to operate at all with even a few percentage cut. So some will disappear altogether, some will suffer less than 25% cuts, some will suffer much greater than 25% cuts.

Again - details or gtfo. Though channeling taxpayers money into private pockets of overseas companies has car scrappage scheme written all over it.

f**k me, when did you become such an ostrich?

A large chunk of the education budget is being placed in private hands (and this is merely phase one. Once out of public hands and estblished the rules will be changed to give those state-funded private schools far more freedom, so that they become much like Eton etc yet funded by the taxpayer - and so giving free private schooling to those currently having to pay private schools).

The NHS budget is being taken from direct govt control and being given to thousands of individuals for them to spend as they wish. The result will be a far greater spend with private healthcare providers. Again, this is just stage 1, with similar to happen in the future as will happen with schools.

The abolishion of the Audit Commission. Councils will still have to be audited, but now only by private companies.

These are the well-reported up-front things. There's far more of the same going on in the background.

Why should they make me anymore afraid of the PR and spin than ran completely through the last 13 years of government?

You've clearly never dealt with PR men. Vacuous liars, the lot of them.

Can I ask: when did you start believing that a ferarri and a mini are the same car? That whole theme is running thru all that you say, yet the *solid* info is there to tell you different.

[eFestivals]

yeah, there's no ideological plan for tories to channel as much taxpayers money as possible into the pockets of private companies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-11396560

And of course, this will definitely save them 30% of their budget, just as hospital cleaning costs reduced after they started to be run by private companies, and the govt subsidies the railways less now they're run by private companies.

[5co77ie]

yeah, there's no ideological plan for tories to channel as much taxpayers money as possible into the pockets of private companies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-11396560

And of course, this will definitely save them 30% of their budget, just as hospital cleaning costs reduced after they started to be run by private companies, and the govt subsidies the railways less now they're run by private companies.

[eFestivals]

I bet that's going to be the model for how a lot of conservative run councils will deal with the problem.

Yep - because it allows them to dissociate themselves to a large extent from its inevitable failure.

==============

Regarding the quango-cutting plans, I've just heard a bit on radio 4 which said that both Thatcher and Blair came to office saying the same thing and how much money they'd save by doing so.

Both left office with more quangos in existence than at the start of their term, and with those quangos costing significantly more (after being inflation adjusted) than the cost of quangos at the start of their term.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

http://www.thereisabetterway.org/

For the Scottish folk. I'll likely be there with Scottish Young Labour. If anyone is wanting to attend and are on their own, you are more than welcome to join us Labour lot lol!

October 23rd! Get it marked. Sorry that it's in Edinburgh tho, only downside.