[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:28 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

DaveO why do you assume that ALL elements of the "structural" deficit are positive? They need not be.

Paying £20bn for the IT NHS farce for example.

I don't assume that. Things do go wrong and I am sure when they set out to implement that system it wasn't the intention to fail though £20bn is not a figure I think is realistic anyway. The point I am making is the structural deficit that Labour ran for six years pre 2008 isn't the source of the problem. Had the 2008 crash not occurred this would have been easily manageable and you would expect them to have worked to reduce it anyway as Darling said was the plan.

In my opinion the current governments focus on the structural deficit reduction is as much political as economic. They want to reduce the size of the state and the current crisis is the excuse. The trouble is unless they can get some real growth in the economy any reductions they make to the structural deficit are going to be eaten away by having to fund the recession. This cost is already huge and so compared to pre-2008 the government has to borrow at three or four times the level than back then. It is not having to do this because it inherited a bad NHS IT system or anything else from Labour.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:31 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

The Grauniad and the BBC.............. enough said.

The Mail is a comic.

Even so, as I said £12bn is bad enough. As for how much is "wasted", then the truth is we don't know. However, it's fair to say that with hindsight, the project would never have been started. It's an example of Labour waste.

But how much waste? It started at £20bn, we're now down to £12bn, and then you don't know how much was wasted. So you don't like the Guardian, the BBC or the Mail? How about the Telegraph? They have it at £11.4bn. How much of that was wasted? Come on, this goes to the heart of your argument that the debt and deficit is a result of wasteful Labour spending.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:34 am  

DaveO wrote:

I don't assume that. Things do go wrong and I am sure when they set out to implement that system it wasn't the intention to fail though £20bn is not a figure I think is realistic anyway. The point I am making is the structural deficit that Labour ran for six years pre 2008 isn't the source of the problem. Had the 2008 crash not occurred this would have been easily manageable and you would expect them to have worked to reduce it anyway as Darling said was the plan.

In my opinion the current governments focus on the structural deficit reduction is as much political as economic. They want to reduce the size of the state and the current crisis is the excuse. The trouble is unless they can get some real growth in the economy any reductions they make to the structural deficit are going to be eaten away by having to fund the recession. This cost is already huge and so compared to pre-2008 the government has to borrow at three or four times the level than back then. It is not having to do this because it inherited a bad NHS IT system or anything else from Labour.

But do you think it prudent economic judgement (a term that Brown used to pin himself to) to assume that the economic boom would continue year after year?

Don't you think that a truely prudent Chancellor would have made provision for a downturn?

Of course the Conservatives wish to reduce the size of the state? Doesn't everyone with an ounce of economic sense? Surely no-one favours a large public sector in this day and age?

You also still don't make a decent counter argument to the fact that there will be a time lag between spending and the deficit materialising.

e.g. had Labour managed to do what they promised, and "balanced the books over the economic cycle" , then the borrowing requirement now would be greatly reduced.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:38 am  

Him wrote:

But how much waste? It started at £20bn, we're now down to £12bn, and then you don't know how much was wasted. So you don't like the Guardian, the BBC or the Mail? How about the Telegraph? They have it at £11.4bn. How much of that was wasted? Come on, this goes to the heart of your argument that the debt and deficit is a result of wasteful Labour spending.

Well if you read the link that you posted, you will find that there is very little consensus on how much is wasted.

"Despite the risks, in September 2011 the UK government announced that the £12.7 billion scheme will be “urgently dismantled”"

This implies virtually all of it.

The "latest" is that some "may" be saved.

The truth is the number changes all the time. The reality is that at least "some" will be wasted and maybe all.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:45 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Well if you read the link that you posted, you will find that there is very little consensus on how much is wasted.

"Despite the risks, in September 2011 the UK government announced that the £12.7 billion scheme will be “urgently dismantled”"

This implies virtually all of it.

The "latest" is that some "may" be saved.

The truth is the number changes all the time. The reality is that at least "some" will be wasted and maybe all.

I didn't post a link.

If there is very little consensus then how can you say "maybe all" is wasted? I can categorically state that not all of it was wasted because I was peripherally involved with it whilst I worked in the NHS.
So, the truth is you don't know how much of the £20bn...sorry £12.7bn...sorry sorry £11.4bn is wasted, which begs the question as to why you included the entire £20bn figure in your argument as to how much Labour spending was wasted?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:29 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Of course the Conservatives wish to reduce the size of the state? Doesn't everyone with an ounce of economic sense? Surely no-one favours a large public sector in this day and age?

Where would YOU make the cuts, ignore what has gone before because that money is spent, its a bit like crying over last weeks grocery bill, where would you cut public expenditure, right now, to make a definite effect within the lifetime of the current government ?

Because they have to show some definite benefit to their policies before the next election, they won't get away with blaming someone else.

So,

Healthcare ?
Pensions ?
Policing/Armed Services ?
Education ?
Infrastructure investment (road building, rail network etc)

And lets have some targets, not woolly politicians arguments like "cut out layers of middle management" or other bollax that give the impression that billions are being spent on jobs that are meaningless because we're all grown ups and we all know that the press love to invent stories like that - lets have some definite targets, how many police officers do you think we could safely afford to lose for instance, or does a City like Leeds really need two huge hospitals, genuine examples like that...

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:49 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Where would YOU make the cuts, ignore what has gone before because that money is spent, its a bit like crying over last weeks grocery bill, where would you cut public expenditure, right now, to make a definite effect within the lifetime of the current government ?

Because they have to show some definite benefit to their policies before the next election, they won't get away with blaming someone else.

So,

Healthcare ?
Pensions ?
Policing/Armed Services ?
Education ?
Infrastructure investment (road building, rail network etc)

And lets have some targets, not woolly politicians arguments like "cut out layers of middle management" or other bollax that give the impression that billions are being spent on jobs that are meaningless because we're all grown ups and we all know that the press love to invent stories like that - lets have some definite targets, how many police officers do you think we could safely afford to lose for instance, or does a City like Leeds really need two huge hospitals, genuine examples like that...

Well not having access to governement figures, I cannot give you a definitive answer now can I?

However, in general the areas I would like to see cut back are.

Benefits
Public sector pensions
Public sector jobs


Why? Because I believe we spend far too much on benefits as a country.

I believe that public sector pensions should fall more in line with the private sector.

I believe in "Small Government". I believe that all levels of Government should be reduced to an absolute minimum.

If you need a case to give you evidence, I present to you Wigan Metro.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:56 am  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

...However, in general the areas I would like to see cut back are.

Benefits
Public sector pensions
Public sector jobs...

Which benefits? Safety nets for the unemployed?, child allowance? Jobseekers?, which benefits specifically should be reduced?
What aspects of public sector pensions? Just make them smaller? or what?
Which public sector jobs? Nurses? Dustmen? Librarians?, Carers?, Boris Johnson? The Queen? which?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:59 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Which benefits? Safety nets for the unemployed?, child allowance? Jobseekers?, which benefits specifically should be reduced?
What aspects of public sector pensions? Just make them smaller? or what?
Which public sector jobs? Nurses? Dustmen? Librarians?, Carers?, Boris Johnson? The Queen? which?

And of course what are the costs of doing so? What is the cost of reducing benefits, pensions and jobs?

I doubt he'll answer, he doesn't do the detail.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:02 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Which benefits? Safety nets for the unemployed?, child allowance? Jobseekers?, which benefits specifically should be reduced?
What aspects of public sector pensions? Just make them smaller? or what?
Which public sector jobs? Nurses? Dustmen? Librarians?, Carers?, Boris Johnson? The Queen? which?

Without seeing the figures neither I, you, nor anyone else can give a definitive answer.

But as an example. Child allowance needs to be cut. If you cannot afford to raise children, don't have them.

Public sector jobs - I would start by looking at Local Authorities and the level and area's of staffing

Public sector pensions- Massive move to defined contribution schemes.