The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread

[Chrysalis]

Hugh compare our spending per head to other developed countries, you may be surprised. Thats a better comparison than comparing to 1990 another tory era of 'under' spending.

Yesterday cameron refused to answer a very simple question, is it fair to reduce housing benefit by 10% to those looking for work. Instead he went on about whats fair for those who work, he is treating the unemployed as lower class citizens and welfare as a budget that can be thrown away. Welfare of people in this country is more important than making super schools etc. the latter is a luxury.

All politicians frame their questions in a way that suits their agenda. Politicians that oppose them frequently refuse to answer questions framed in such a way as to trip them up regardless of their answer.

I find it unsurprising that Cameron should decline to answer a question in the terms posed by Milliband. I also find it unsurprising that you should seize on the performance, rather than the content of the debate, as support for your view.

I believe Cameron declined to answer in the way Milliband wanted him to in order to emphasize that the real issue of fairness is why taxpayers should subsidise people to live in houses at rent rates that they as working people could not afford. I think Cameron is correct. Anyone who says that a person is being treated unfairly when they're receiving £20,000 a year housing benefit even after these cuts is just having a laugh.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Hugh compare our spending per head to other developed countries, you may be surprised. Thats a better comparison than comparing to 1990 another tory era of 'under' spending.

Yesterday cameron refused to answer a very simple question, is it fair to reduce housing benefit by 10% to those looking for work. Instead he went on about whats fair for those who work, he is treating the unemployed as lower class citizens and welfare as a budget that can be thrown away. Welfare of people in this country is more important than making super schools etc. the latter is a luxury.

Originally Posted by Chris

All politicians frame their questions in a way that suits their agenda. Politicians that oppose them frequently refuse to answer questions framed in such a way as to trip them up regardless of their answer.

I find it unsurprising that Cameron should decline to answer a question in the terms posed by Milliband. I also find it unsurprising that you should seize on the performance, rather than the content of the debate, as support for your view.

I believe Cameron declined to answer in the way Milliband wanted him to in order to emphasize that the real issue of fairness is why taxpayers should subsidise people to live in houses at rent rates that they as working people could not afford. I think Cameron is correct. Anyone who says that a person is being treated unfairly when they're receiving £20,000 a year housing benefit even after these cuts is just having a laugh.

BBC

Ed Miliband should use memorable "cheer lines" at prime minister's questions to ensure coverage on TV news bulletins, leaked advice to Labour's leader says.

A memo to Mr Miliband on what to do at the weekly session, seen by The Times, urges him to ask simple questions to make PM David Cameron look "evasive".........

.......The big prize is usually to provoke the PM into appearing evasive by repeatedly failing to answer a simple question, often one that requires a simple yes or no."

Mr Miliband appeared to follow this advice on Wednesday, pressing the prime minister on whether he was going to drop any of the coalition's planned reforms to housing benefit, whether the plans were fair, and how many families in London would be affected.

As Chris says, if someone says to you "are you going to stop beating your wife? and I will only take a "yes" or "no" answer", you are damned if you answer "yes" (because you are admitting to beating your wife) and you are damned if you answer "no" (Aha, you beat your wife and you are not going to stop).....

Also, in real life, most things are not binary, they are fuzzy - anyone who states otherwise is trying to mislead us.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

All politicians frame their questions in a way that suits their agenda. Politicians that oppose them frequently refuse to answer questions framed in such a way as to trip them up regardless of their answer.

I find it unsurprising that Cameron should decline to answer a question in the terms posed by Milliband. I also find it unsurprising that you should seize on the performance, rather than the content of the debate, as support for your view.

I believe Cameron declined to answer in the way Milliband wanted him to in order to emphasize that the real issue of fairness is why taxpayers should subsidise people to live in houses at rent rates that they as working people could not afford. I think Cameron is correct. Anyone who says that a person is being treated unfairly when they're receiving £20,000 a year housing benefit even after these cuts is just having a laugh.

the same as cameron you only considering whats fair for the taxpayer as if the rest dont matter.

however paying people full rate on JSA has absolutely zilch to do with the overall cap on housing benefit and you have simply shown to either misunderstand what I meant or sidetracking it.

I will explain.

Every housing benefit claimant has a calculation on how much they entitled to, based on circumstances and income levels, this clculation will then have 10% removed after 1 year of JSA which is what was been asked if fair. This will happen even if the benefit is only been paid at £200 a month for a bedsit.

In other words cameron's answer had little to do with the question.

erm, why shouldn't it be "fair for the taxpayer"?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

erm, why shouldn't it be "fair for the taxpayer"?

I didnt say it shouldnt, I said it should also be fair to everyone else as well.

Actually, you said

the same as cameron you only considering whats fair for the taxpayer as if the rest dont matter

which is quite different - but now I understand what you mean.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Hugh compare our spending per head to other developed countries, you may be surprised. Thats a better comparison than comparing to 1990 another tory era of 'under' spending.

Is high government spending per head really any kind of metric to be happy about? This is essentially saying that the populace aren't grown up enough to use their own wealth so the government has to take it off them in taxation and spend it for them.

Just a thought when comparing our government spending to these many other developed countries:

[Chrysalis]

yep now its ok, but it was much worse in the 1990s, the sort of level people want back.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yep now its ok, but it was much worse in the 1990s, the sort of level people want back.

Not really. The level it's going back to per capita will be 2006-7 levels not 1990s levels.

It's a sign of how relatively left wing our times are that there haven't been any calls, within this thread at least, for cuts to those levels.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yep now its ok, but it was much worse in the 1990s, the sort of level people want back.

Nobody "wants it back" to any level - we just need to get our deficit down, and pay off our country's excessive debts, otherwise we will get charged higher interest on those debts, and they will continue to grow, putting them on future generations.

That wouldn't be fair, imho.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nobody "wants it back" to any level - we just need to get our deficit down, and pay off our country's excessive debts, otherwise we will get charged higher interest on those debts, and they will continue to grow, putting them on future generations.

That wouldn't be fair, imho.

I think you need to re-read the what the numbers are and the proposed objectives of the austerity measures.

It is my understanding that the proposed objectives are simply to try to bring into balance the structural deficit which is the amount the government receives and spends. They have given themselves 4 or 5 years to get that spending under control and some influential financial bodies think they are going to be woefully short.

The measures do nothing to address either the interest paid or the almost a trillion pounds debt owed so the debt and crippling interest payments roll on until the government can balance the books on an annual basis.

The coalition has used IMHO scaremongering to hopefully frighten the population into allowing idealogical changes for what are in fact trifling amounts in the grand scheme of things and it looks as though they are succeeding. UK plc just like other fiat money western countries always operates in a sea of red ink and the current adjustments are simply an attempt to keep the bailiffs away from the door. Whether we were in that much trouble or not is debatable.

What is proposed does little or nothing for the legacy of debt unless it all goes horribly wrong. The current Westminster incumbents are fixated on their objectives and like young men in a hurry they look as though they will charge on come what may. I sincerely hope that there isn't a big deep hole en route to their objectives.

Each journey begins with a single step.

If we don't get the structural deficit under control, the interest rates on the national debt will be higher, thus accumulating more debt (and our debt interest bill is £2.3 billion per month at the moment) - this view is supported by some august and influential financial bodies such as the IMF, most of the City of London, and the International Credit Ratings Agencies.

One small, but very important, fact - Although public spending will be £43 billion higher in 2014/15 than it is this year, it will £30bn lower than planned by Alistair Darling. George Osborne is aiming to cut Labour's planned increases in spending rather than initiating actual absolute cuts in the public spending totals to be totally accurate.

btw, you do know that the forecast total for public borrowing of £167 billion for 2009/10 mentioned in the Labour Government March Budget was in fact more than every single Labour government had hitherto borrowed in history, so I don't think continuing in that vein was sustainable, do you?

[Chrysalis]

Hugh we all understand that, however if its as critical as been made out there certianly should and would have been more tax rises.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Each journey begins with a single step.

If we don't get the structural deficit under control, the interest rates on the national debt will be higher, thus accumulating more debt (and our debt interest bill is £2.3 billion per month at the moment) - this view is supported by some august and influential financial bodies such as the IMF, most of the City of London, and the International Credit Ratings Agencies.

One small, but very important, fact - Although public spending will be £43 billion higher in 2014/15 than it is this year, it will £30bn lower than planned by Alistair Darling. George Osborne is aiming to cut Labour's planned increases in spending rather than initiating actual absolute cuts in the public spending totals to be totally accurate.

btw, you do know that the forecast total for public borrowing of £167 billion for 2009/10 mentioned in the Labour Government March Budget was in fact more than every single Labour government had hitherto borrowed in history, so I don't think continuing in that vein was sustainable, do you?

I like the "each journey begins with a single step" because on the countless occasions I have heard it used, in my life, I have often stated that providing it is in the right direction

The IMF, The City, are international bankers and financiers and their interests may deviate from the populace as the IMF in particular is interested only in balance sheets irrespective of human consequences. The City has been of interest to me for decades and their interests are short termism and profit driven.

ICRA's have given the thumbs up to far too many USA created complicated schemes for creating debt out of debt that have gone bust. They hold the international standard of credit rating but IMO have a low credibility rating, not that it matters what ordinary folk think.

I do not care what Labour had planned because we are where we are and judgement can only be based on the way forward. Looking backwards or projecting would of, should of, could of scenarios are irrelevant. One comment.... of course the way we were going had to be changed as it was unsustainable.

In the run up to the election I was dismayed by a choice of dumb, dumber and dumbest (con, lib, lab) and when the outcome was known I thought "here we go again, 70' and 80's with a vicious deflationary twist". We are adopting the Canadian model which was used to very painful but good effect from 1993 to 1999. It worked for them because the most vigorous period of global growth started and ended during their grand experiment (1992 to 2000). We need the same burgeoning global growth but there isn't a snowballs chance of seeing it.

The busy young men on a mission have embarked on a route for the country at possibly the worst time in recent history and if any historic parallel was to have been drawn then liquidity reduction, at a bad time, was the USA 1930's model.

I may be and sincerely hope that I am overly pessimistic but I have little faith in politicians and fear of those who are driven individuals.