The Spending Review (tackling the Socialists debt mountain)

[angelman]

As someone interviewed on TV so eloquently put it:

 

"The bankers caused this mess but the children and the poor will pay for it"

 

Sure...it was the bankers who employed 860,000 more public sector workers. It was the bankers who ran up huge debts by over spending. And what bankers are you referring too? All of them? Investment ones? High Street ones? etc etc? Surprised that no one seems to have blamed Maggie for the problems we have.

 

Oh - and the Government taking a stake in the banks have made quite a tidy profit if you take their current book value

[badgerx16]

Hardly abnormal though is it? Its the county town of Dorset. A small town with the County Council HQ, Police HQ and the county hospital - all covering about 700,000 million people. It will be the same in Lewes in Sussex. Should be more worried about the cities up north and in Scotland where over 40% of a population of 1 million work for public services and another 20% are unemployed.

Precisely.

[badgerx16]

Oh - and the Government taking a stake in the banks have made quite a tidy profit if you take their current book value

Without which intervention the bankers would have completely crashed their empire of illusions and sleight of hand. They were being far too clever for their own good, and the Government was forced to borrow to bail them out.

[solentstars]

Sure...it was the bankers who employed 860,000 more public sector workers. It was the bankers who ran up huge debts by over spending. And what bankers are you referring too? All of them? Investment ones? High Street ones? etc etc? Surprised that no one seems to have blamed Maggie for the problems we have.

 

Oh - and the Government taking a stake in the banks have made quite a tidy profit if you take their current book value

 

the bank of england governor has blamed the banks ,the tory mp on meridian has blamed the banks,itsa worldwide problem and we are all going to pay for it,i expect if your house got burgled your the sort of guy who would not blame the burglar but the guy you pay rent for the house.

yes the public sector needs reducing but alot of money was spent on new schools ,hospitals which were underfunded in the 80.s .

[angelman]

Possibly, but they didn't have to. They could have let them go to the wall and stood around and watched the whole house of cards come crashing down. Or maybe if the bankers had had the proper controls in place, rather than being allowed free reign (thanks to Gordon), we might not had that particular mess. Nice to see HSBC run properly. Lloyds was run properly before they took on a huge amount of toxic debt that didn't show up in due diligence (I wonder why!?). But as I said, the budget deficit is not the fault of the banks. What ever things they have done wrong, the cuts are there to "pay" for Labour's excesses/

 

People always seem to point to the bankers for all the ills of the world. I would say that I am not a banker, have never been one and am not related to one. But it seems that there is a certain amount of chipiness amongst people for the amount of money that they earn. Rather than people whinging that someone earns more than you, why not go out and do the banker's job and earn that amount? And why should bankers be criticised when PL footballers on £220k a week aren't?

[Johnny Bognor]

the bank of england governor has blamed the banks ,the tory mp on meridian has blamed the banks,itsa worldwide problem and we are all going to pay for it,i expect if your house got burgled your the sort of guy who would not blame the burglar but the guy you pay rent for the house.

yes the public sector needs reducing but alot of money was spent on new schools ,hospitals which were underfunded in the 80.s .

 

What part of structural deficit do you guys not get?

 

A structural deficit is one which is not down to economic cycles (like recessions & credit crunches) and is purely down to government spending. The OECD reckon our STRUCTURAL deficit is 7% of GDP which equates to £100 Billion.

 

That means that TWO THIRDS of our deficit is down to purely to Government (and their voters), not the bankers or anyone else.

 

The Old New Labour party are using the "Blame the Bankers" line to distract everyone from the truth. Yes the bankers may have partly been responsible for the credit crunch / recession (which has increased the deficit somewhat), however they are in not responsible for a structural deficit which has been in place since 2002, some FIVE years before the crisis!!!!!

Edited 21 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[angelman]

the bank of england governor has blamed the banks ,the tory mp on meridian has blamed the banks,itsa worldwide problem and we are all going to pay for it,i expect if your house got burgled your the sort of guy who would not blame the burglar but the guy you pay rent for the house.

yes the public sector needs reducing but alot of money was spent on new schools ,hospitals which were underfunded in the 80.s .

 

 

If the MPs say it, then it has to be true.

 

Not sure quite what your point is about blaming someone else when I get burgled. As I own my house, I can't blame the person I pay rent to; and as I know who burgled me last time, I know who to blame.

[trousers]

Probably nowhere near the figure you would like it to be to support your argument. A few less luxury kitchen salesmen & Porsche dealers, maybe one 3 Michelin starred restaurant closes. Most of these bonuses would be either spent abroad when they go on their holidays to exotic and exclusive destinations, or squirreled away in Monagesque mansions and off shore bank accounts.

 

ok, thanks....

[solentstars]

What part of structural deficit do you guys not get?

 

A structural deficit is one which is not down to economic cycles (like recessions & credit crunches) and is purely down to government spending. The OECD reckon our STRUCTURAL deficit is 7% of GDP which equates to £100 Billion.

 

That means that TWO THIRDS of our deficit is down to purely to Government (and their voters), not the bankers or anyone else.

 

The Old New Labour party are using the "Blame the Bankers" line to distract everyone from the truth. Yes the bankers may have partly been responsible for the credit crunch / recession (which has increased the deficit somewhat), however they are in not responsible for a structural deficit which has been in place since 2002, some FIVE years before the crisis!!!!!

ha ha when did the bank of england governer join the labour party or is he lying to,i think you should read his speech last month.

yes there is a structural deficit and is being dealt with but to pretend that the banks all over the world did not tip the worldwide recession nearly a depression which hopefully has been avoided by the mega amount of money pumped into the banks.

if you want to pretend otherwise thats up to you.

[solentstars]

If the MPs say it, then it has to be true.

 

Not sure quite what your point is about blaming someone else when I get burgled. As I own my house, I can't blame the person I pay rent to; and as I know who burgled me last time, I know who to blame.

)

[benjii]

Possibly, but they didn't have to. They could have let them go to the wall and stood around and watched the whole house of cards come crashing down. Or maybe if the bankers had had the proper controls in place, rather than being allowed free reign (thanks to Gordon), we might not had that particular mess. Nice to see HSBC run properly. Lloyds was run properly before they took on a huge amount of toxic debt that didn't show up in due diligence (I wonder why!?). But as I said, the budget deficit is not the fault of the banks. What ever things they have done wrong, the cuts are there to "pay" for Labour's excesses/

 

People always seem to point to the bankers for all the ills of the world. I would say that I am not a banker, have never been one and am not related to one. But it seems that there is a certain amount of chipiness amongst people for the amount of money that they earn. Rather than people whinging that someone earns more than you, why not go out and do the banker's job and earn that amount? And why should bankers be criticised when PL footballers on £220k a week aren't?

 

Aye.

 

There is something so simple-mindedly pathetic about the, "the bankers caused this but the poor people will pay", line that angers me.

 

We're talking about public spending cuts. Of course cuts in public spending will affect the poor more. Why? Because the poor rely on the state more than anyone else. "Fairness" etc is not relevant. This is not a normative thing it is an inescapable truism.

[angelman]

whoever is to blame, we are all ****ed and am afraid as it is going to affect us all and as we are very NIMBYish when it comes to this, we are all going to complain.

[benjii]

whoever is to blame, we are all ****ed and am afraid as it is going to affect us all and as we are very NIMBYish when it comes to this, we are all going to complain.

 

Although funnily enough most polls I've seen online seem to come out with a total of at least 50% either in favour of the cuts or believing they are a necessary evil.

[Whitey Grandad]

a lot meaning how much..?

 

Thatcher aranged that we get it as a rebate which goes into the national coffers. I think this is worth around £4bn a year. The important question is 'what do we get for our money?'

[Whitey Grandad]

Interesting, perhaps, to note that Thatcher stuck to 'average' public spending rises in her first half of her reign.

 

They were only 'average' because the trend line is drawn through them.

[Whitey Grandad]

Probably nowhere near the figure you would like it to be to support your argument. A few less luxury kitchen salesmen & Porsche dealers, maybe one 3 Michelin starred restaurant closes. Most of these bonuses would be either spent abroad when they go on their holidays to exotic and exclusive destinations, or squirreled away in Monagesque mansions and off shore bank accounts.

And how many jobs would be saved (or created) if the banks were to charge less instead of giving these bonuses to their staff?

[Johnny Bognor]

ha ha when did the bank of england governer join the labour party or is he lying to,i think you should read his speech last month.

yes there is a structural deficit and is being dealt with but to pretend that the banks all over the world did not tip the worldwide recession nearly a depression which hopefully has been avoided by the mega amount of money pumped into the banks.

if you want to pretend otherwise thats up to you.

 

The bankers are partly responsible for the recession as are the people who failed to regulate them.

 

As for the deficit, which is what the cuts are are all about, some of it is down to the recession (partly caused by the bankers) and the rest is down to government. Therefore, when it comes to cuts, 66% can be blamed on labour and their voters, with the balance being blamed on the bankers. Even if there was no credit crunch / recession, we would still have been facing cuts anyway.

 

But if it is easier for you to live your live with pantomime hate figures, then go ahead and hate the bankers.

Edited 21 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Whitey Grandad]

ha ha when did the bank of england governer join the labour party or is he lying to,i think you should read his speech last month.

yes there is a structural deficit and is being dealt with but to pretend that the banks all over the world did not tip the worldwide recession nearly a depression which hopefully has been avoided by the mega amount of money pumped into the banks.

if you want to pretend otherwise thats up to you.

There were a number of causes of which irresponsible lending was only one part.

[Whitey Grandad]

The bankers are partly responsible for the recession as are the people who failed to regulate them.

 

As for the deficit, which is what the cuts are are all about, some of it is down to the recession (partly caused by the bankers) and the rest is down to government. Therefore, when it comes to cuts, 66% can be blamed on labour and their voters, with the balance being blamed on the bankers. Even if there was no credit crunch / recession, we would have been facing cuts anyway.

Bankers have never caused a recession in the same way that they have never caused growth. Recessions occur from time to time. They always have and the always will. The longer the gap since the last then the deeper the downturn.

[badgerx16]

And how many jobs would be saved (or created) if the banks were to charge less instead of giving these bonuses to their staff?

Or even follow the lending guidelines the Government have suggested.

[badgerx16]

Bankers have never caused a recession in the same way that they have never caused growth. Recessions occur from time to time. They always have and the always will. The longer the gap since the last then the deeper the downturn.

The biggest b4lls-up Gordon Brown made was his claim to have ended 'boom & bust'. Too many things were/are beyond the direct control of a CofTE to make such a statement.

[Johnny Bognor]

Bankers have never caused a recession in the same way that they have never caused growth. Recessions occur from time to time. They always have and the always will. The longer the gap since the last then the deeper the downturn.

 

Yes, recessions are cyclical but they are generally triggered by a major event. The credit crunch was the trigger this time round, so irresponsible lending and the criminal / fraudulent packing and selling toxic assets didn't help either. I am not one who solely blames the bankers and I stand by my point (which has been consistent throughtout) that the bankers are partly (however large or small) to blame.

 

The main cultprits are the Old New Labour party, as they should have put money by for a rainy day, didn't and we will now all feel the consequences.

[Johnny Bognor]

The biggest b4lls-up Gordon Brown made was his claim to have ended 'boom & bust'. Too many things were/are beyond the direct control of a CofTE to make such a statement.

 

......which means he was either stupid (which I don't think he was) or he fraudulently gave people false confidence for which he should be prosecuted.

[badgerx16]

......which means he was either stupid (which I don't think he was) or he fraudulently gave people false confidence for which he should be prosecuted.

He is a politician - In the next 5 years we will get just as much BS and deception from the ConDems as we got from Labour. They are all the same, as Paull Weller wrote

"You choose your leaders and place your trust

As their lies put you down and their promises bust".

[franny]

I see today that the EU are looking to increace UK governement spending by around £2.5bn on maternity leave over the coming years, that on top of an increase in spending from Brussels by 6% in the coming year. What planet are these people on, dont they know we are broke?!

Why is this not being discussed at the Westminster village?

[Johnny Bognor]

He is a politician - In the next 5 years we will get just as much BS and deception from the ConDems as we got from Labour. They are all the same, as Paull Weller wrote

"You choose your leaders and place your trust

As their lies put you down and their promises bust".

 

 

Of course all politicians lie. "I did not have sexual relations" was one that comes to mind. However, if it was covering up for an indiscretion (or Geoffery Archer lieing in court, just to show political balance), it doesn't affect me directly on a day to day basis. Even if a politician goes back on a promise, **** happens / things change.

 

However "No more boom and bust" was more sinister than that, as it was deliberately designed to give people false confidence to continue the debt fueled boom, by taking on more debt, so that knobhead could have a chance to be PM one day. That's right, many people got themsleves up **** creek so that ****head could "play" at being PM. It wouldn't be so bad apart from the fact that he was the worst PM in living memory.

[Whitey Grandad]

I see today that the EU are looking to increace UK governement spending by around £2.5bn on maternity leave over the coming years, that on top of an increase in spending from Brussels by 6% in the coming year. What planet are these people on, dont they know we are broke?!

Why is this not being discussed at the Westminster village?

There is no appetite for this amongst the national governments.

[franny]

There is no appetite for this amongst the national governments.

 

But doesn't it show that all the indignation and bleating is somehat false when we are spending billions elsewhere without a murmur - and I say that relates to all parties.

[Whitey Grandad]

But doesn't it show that all the indignation and bleating is somehat false when we are spending billions elsewhere without a murmur - and I say that relates to all parties.

 

Even with all these 'cuts', public spending is set to rise. Annual interest payments alone will rise from £42bn this year to £63bn in four years time. The increase is about what we spend on education or defence.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Govt are only reducing spending back to 2006 levels,this is still way way too high.Browns talk of reforming welfare was just a con designed to apease the floating voter. The time to reform welfare was during the good times and the Labour Govt had no intention of ever doing it.The Govt spent too much of our money and taxed us too much during the boom years.

[badgerx16]

It wouldn't be so bad apart from the fact that he was the worst PM in living memory.

I'd certainly put him behind Thatch, but that's a personal view. I suppose it all depends on how long 'living memory' is.

[Whitey Grandad]

The Govt are only reducing spending back to 2006 levels,this is still way way too high.Browns talk of reforming welfare was just a con designed to apease the floating voter. The time to reform welfare was during the good times and the Labour Govt had no intention of ever doing it.The Govt spent too much of our money and taxed us too much during the boom years.

 

Absolutely. It was a case of 'one government too many'. If only Labour had replaced Blair with Brown sooner..

[tony13579]

Even with all these 'cuts', public spending is set to rise. Annual interest payments alone will rise from £42bn this year to £63bn in four years time. The increase is about what we spend on education or defence.

How much of this interest is the debt of buying back part of the banks. Is it time for the government to sell thier share back to the market and reduce the debt that way?

[Whitey Grandad]

How much of this interest is the debt of buying back part of the banks. Is it time for the government to sell thier share back to the market and reduce the debt that way?

The short answer is very little. Our total debt is over £900bn rising to £1100bn next year. When RBS shares reach something around £0.56 each then we shall have made a profit. They are just below that level at the moment. We have also made a big packet out of the emergency loans.

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

If that keeps you awake at night:

 

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

 

These charts are expressed as percentage of GDP which has fallen by over 6% in the last few years.

Edited 21 October, 2010 by Whitey Grandad
clarification

[Whitey Grandad]

It's also worth pointing out that if we didn't take these cost-cutting steps then the interest we pay on our national borrowing could rise even further, even if we didn't borrow any more.

[Whitey Grandad]

An interesting take on the money raised from Income Tax from different wealth levels.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

[Joensuu]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516919

[Colinjb]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516919

 

Sorry, but that is an excellent example of over-reliance on the state and a lack of social responsibility on the parent's part.

 

Don't have 10 kids unless you have the provision to care for them. Children are not a fundemental human right, they are a privilage. Having 7 more children after the guy gives up work to care for his wife. It's a total joke.

Edited 21 October, 2010 by Colinjb

[1976_Child]

Sorry, but that is an excellent example of over-reliance on the state and a lack of social responsibility on the parent's part.

 

Don't have 10 kids unless you have the provision to care for them. Children are not a fundemental human right, they are a privilage. Having 7 more children after the guy gives up work to care for his wife. It's a total joke.

 

I couldn't agree more. If these parasites can't be bothered to use a condom then why should I have to pay for the upkeep of their brood. What selfish layabouts. It used to be called 'family planning' and it involved sitting down with a calculator and working out whether you could afford additions to your family.

[Whitey Grandad]

I couldn't agree more. If these parasites can't be bothered to use a condom then why should I have to pay for the upkeep of their brood. What selfish layabouts. It used to be called 'family planning' and it involved sitting down with a calculator and working out whether you could afford additions to your family.

 

Cut his balls off, I say.

[angelman]

I would love to have 10 kids paid for by you lot. Unfortunately I have stopped at 3 as I don#t want the expense of more (and the Mrs had enough of me on top of her).

 

AS for the BBC article saying the top 1% pay 24% of the income tax, I am glad they wrote this. I paid a nasty tax bill this year and got ****ed off mightily when Cameron and Osborne keep on going on about those with the broadest shoulders paying up for everyone else. I feel that I already pay my fair share thank you very much and I don't need some shyster politician telling me I need to pay even more.

[aintforever]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516919

 

The is a shining example of how Labour let the country down and why the Tories are in power.

 

When scum like this milk the system it's the hard working lower paid people (supposedly Labour's people) that are let down more than anyone.

 

Hopefully Cameron will keep the cuts in benefits going.

[1976_Child]

Cut his balls off, I say.

 

actually you are on to something Grandad. I do believe that serial benefit slobs should be neutered so that they don't breed generations of layabouts.

[JackFrost]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516919

 

After reading the paragraph in Italic, I immediately thought "good"

[solentstars]

The is a shining example of how Labour let the country down and why the Tories are in power.

 

When scum like this milk the system it's the hard working lower paid people (supposedly Labour's people) that are let down more than anyone.

 

Hopefully Cameron will keep the cuts in benefits going.

yawn read storys like this in the thatcher years and she put loads of able working people on incapacity benefits to hide the mass unemployment her policy's created, its wrong but its been going on under all governments for the last 30 years.

pity you don,t get so angry of the tax avoiders as well has the spongers.

[JackFrost]

yawn read storys like this in the thatcher years and she put loads of able working people on incapacity benefits to hide the mass unemployment her policy's created, its wrong but its been going on under all governments for the last 30 years.

pity you don,t get so angry of the tax avoiders as well has the spongers.

 

so has that lol

[rocknrollman no2]

Anyone who stays at home,with no intention of working ,makes me mad because i have worked all my life and i have always tried to do the right thing.

But the thing i hate most is those really well off people and the super rich who avoid at all costs the taxes they owe,thus depriving the government of much needed tax.Although you never seem to hear about these super rich tax dodgers because half the Tory party seem to be friends with people like these.

To me its the same old Tories looking after the rich.

[dune]

Anyone who stays at home,with no intention of working ,makes me mad because i have worked all my life and i have always tried to do the right thing.

But the thing i hate most is those really well off people and the super rich who avoid at all costs the taxes they owe,thus depriving the government of much needed tax.Although you never seem to hear about these super rich tax dodgers because half the Tory party seem to be friends with people like these.

To me its the same old Tories looking after the rich.

 

It's no different to how Mrs Thatcher put it. Under the Socialists everyone is dragged down.

[badgerx16]

It's no different to how Mrs Thatcher put it. Under the Socialists everyone is dragged down.

I am still looking forward to THAT party once the old ratbag finally shuffles off.

[rocknrollman no2]

I am still looking forward to THAT party once the old ratbag finally shuffles off.

 

Already booked my place for that one badger.