Autumn statement

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's official.

While UKIP want to take the UK back to the 50's, the Tories prefer the 30's.

As a proportion of GDP the Governments prposed cuts, "would probably take spending on public services to its lowest since the 1930s." OBR.

It'll be goodbye to the welfare state if the Tories are re-elected in May.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30318870

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Boy George thinks the media (ie the BBC) is being "hyperbolic" about his proposed cuts.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30323690

 

[callan]

Boy George thinks the media (ie the BBC) is being "hyperbolic" about his proposed cuts.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30323690

Do you think we should be putting money away just in case Labour get into power and fancy another illegal war?

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

It's official.

While UKIP want to take the UK back to the 50's, the Tories prefer the 30's.

As a proportion of GDP the Governments prposed cuts, "would probably take spending on public services to its lowest since the 1930s." OBR.

It'll be goodbye to the welfare state if the Tories are re-elected in May.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30318870

Whereas Ed Miliband wants to take us back to the 70s...

Is it a question of which decade you want to go back to?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Do you think we should be putting money away just in case Labour get into power and fancy another illegal war?

Miliband, of course, wasn't even in Parliament when Bliar took the UK into that illegal war with Iraq.

I don't think there's any risk that Labour -under Ed-will be taking the country down that sort of road again.

And certainly not if the Defence budget gets its fair share of future cuts.:smile:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Whereas Ed Miliband wants to take us back to the 70s...

Is it a question of which decade you want to go back to?

Always had a soft spot for the 60's myself. :winking:

 

[Benfleet A1]

There isn't a single economy in the world in the black and Ed Balls has said that further cuts will have to be made by Labour if they gain power. He has also stated they will borrow more to invest [exactly what they plan to invest in, he omitted to say] thus plunging the country into even more debt.

153 billion, just try and get your head around that amount for a moment then tell us all again just how giving Labour power is going to be better for this country.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

There isn't a single economy in the world in the black and Ed Balls has said that further cuts will have to be made by Labour if they gain power. He has also stated they will borrow more to invest [exactly what they plan to invest in, he omitted to say] thus plunging the country into even more debt.

153 billion, just try and get your head around that amount for a moment then tell us all again just how giving Labour power is going to be better for this country.

Labour have committed to the same cuts as the Tories would impose for 2015/16.

The Tories, of course,have an idelogical agenda against the welfare state, where cuts in government spending are regarded as some kind of virility symbol.

You'll no doubt remember that Alistair Darling was widely derided for suggesting cutting the deficit merely by 50% in one paliamentary term.That is in fact largely what Boy George has achieved,despite his promise to abolish the deficit in 5 years.

In any case, the best way to cut the deficit is by achieving consistent growth and not by cuts alone.Borrowing to finance growth is not a problem while interest repayment rates remain at their current, historically low levels.

You'll no doubt be aware that successive British governments, (both Labour and Tory), ran budget deficits from 1945 onwards, until nearly the end of the Blair years.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Fantastic move on stamp duty. Savings for regular folk looking to buy and a bigger hit on people able to afford mansions.

I like the removal of air fuel duty on tickets for under 12s, although I can imagine the airline industry taking a while to pass on those cuts to customers.

 

[South Bank Hank]

I don't think there's any risk that Labour -under Ed-will be taking the country down that sort of road again.

Agreed. He'd need to make himself electable first and the polls suggest there's little sign of that right now.

 

[Pubey]

Agreed. He'd need to make himself electable first and the polls suggest there's little sign of that right now.

Really? He doesn't appear like a PM and yet there he is, odds on...

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics...lection/prime-minister-after-general-election

 

[South Bank Hank]

Really? He doesn't appear like a PM and yet there he is, odds on...

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics...lection/prime-minister-after-general-election

And his party would be nailed on if they ditched him according to the November YouGov poll.

Ed Miliband is now less popular than Nick Clegg after his approval ratings slumped to an all-time low, a new poll suggests.

Just 18 per cent of voters think Mr Miliband is doing a good job, against 73 per cent who think he is doing badly – an overall rating of minus 55. That is one point worse than Mr Clegg, on minus 54.



The Prime Minister has an overall rating of minus 14. Some 40 per cent of voters think he is doing a good job, against 54 who think he is doing poorly, according to a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times.



Mr Cameron enjoys strong support from his base, with 97 per cent of Tory voters saying Mr Cameron is doing well. By contrast, just 50 per cent of Labour voters think Mr Miliband is doing a good job, with 44 per cent saying he is doing badly.


Some 27 per cent of Ukip supporters say Mr Cameron is doing a good job, but only 2 per cent endorsed Mr Miliband.


Labour have a one-point lead over the Tories, but at 32 per cent it is the joint lowest support recorded since Mr Miliband became the Labour leader in 2010.

The man is a millstone.

 

[Pubey]

And his party would be nailed on if they ditched him according to the November YouGov poll.

The man is a millstone.

aye not disagreeing with that.

 

[callan]

And his party would be nailed on if they ditched him according to the November YouGov poll.



The man is a millstone.

It's not a well known fact however Miliband was awarded a blue peter badge, also he can do a rubix cube in an under 90 seconds...so he has tasted success before.

 

[Swiss Tony]

Always had a soft spot for the 60's myself. :winking:

Me too,69 being my favourite.

 

[GrumpyBlue]

Me too,69 being my favourite.

With or without a blazer :winking:

 

[Carry On Shrimping]

For those anoraks amongst us, estimated welfare spending under George Osborne's plans (figures taken from Office of Budget Responsibility's Economic & Fiscal Outlook) by 2019-20 will be £240.7 billion including following items:

Incapacity Benefits £15.2 billion
Diability Living Allowances £15 billion
Housing Benefit £24 billion
Child Benefit £12.7 billion
State Pension £102.3 billion

The Autumn Statement itself contains some very optimistic forecasts on growth from tax revenues. Personally I cannot see how the aim of getting rid of the deficit is achievable even in the next Parliament. If the gap between spending plans and tax revenues is to be closed - as both Cons and Lab claim to want - then politicans of all the parties are going to have to be a lot more open about the fact that to achieve that goal some drastic choices will have to be taken - a big rise in tax rates and/or, probably and, some big cuts in public spending.

 

[Neil_F]

The Tories, of course,have an idelogical agenda against the welfare state, where cuts in government spending are regarded as some kind of virility symbol.

Sigh.... where to start.

If you are going to reduce the budget deficit then the best place to start is with the largest item of government spending - welfare.

The problem with so much political debate is that each side characterises the other as demonic. Claiming that the Conservatives would end the welfare state is hyperbolic nonsense and as daft as claims that Labour would throw open the borders to everyone. There will still be pensions, there will still be unemployment and disability benefit. We would just spend less on it.

You may think that is right, you may think it is unjust, but I would suggest the juvenile characterisations and blind rage add nothing.

You'll no doubt remember that Alistair Darling was widely derided for suggesting cutting the deficit merely by 50% in one paliamentary term.That is in fact largely what Boy George has achieved,despite his promise to abolish the deficit in 5 years.

Comparing actual to notional is pointless. Darling's projection did not factor the Euro crisis and he never actually had to implement his plan. Osborne made a mistake in setting a five year target. There are too many variables.

You though, Barna, can't accuse the government of too many cuts in one paragraph and then not closing the deficit quickly enough in the next.

In any case, the best way to cut the deficit is by achieving consistent growth and not by cuts alone.Borrowing to finance growth is not a problem while interest repayment rates remain at their current, historically low levels.

The government has borrowed more than £100bn every year since 2010. How much more borrowing do you want?

You'll no doubt be aware that successive British governments, (both Labour and Tory), ran current account deficits from 1945 onwards, until nearly the end of the Blair years.

Oh dear. The current account deficit is something completely different. We are talking about the budget deficit.

You also shouldn't bring up the 2001-08 deficits either as it was exactly because of this fiscal laxity we are in this mess.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Fantastic move on stamp duty. Savings for regular folk looking to buy and a bigger hit on people able to afford mansions.

I like the removal of air fuel duty on tickets for under 12s, although I can imagine the airline industry taking a while to pass on those cuts to customers.

Or a bigger hit on Londoners who are already subjected to far higher costs of living. There really should be some 1. London and 2. South East living tax allowance.

The removal of air fuel duties on under 12s is a terrible move. Children on aeroplanes should be taxed extra. No-one wants to have to sit next to a kid on a flight.

For those anoraks amongst us, estimated welfare spending under George Osborne's plans (figures taken from Office of Budget Responsibility's Economic & Fiscal Outlook) by 2019-20 will be £240.7 billion including following items:

Incapacity Benefits £15.2 billion
Diability Living Allowances £15 billion
Housing Benefit £24 billion
Child Benefit £12.7 billion
State Pension £102.3 billion

The Autumn Statement itself contains some very optimistic forecasts on growth from tax revenues. Personally I cannot see how the aim of getting rid of the deficit is achievable even in the next Parliament. If the gap between spending plans and tax revenues is to be closed - as both Cons and Lab claim to want - then politicans of all the parties are going to have to be a lot more open about the fact that to achieve that goal some drastic choices will have to be taken - a big rise in tax rates and/or, probably and, some big cuts in public spending.

Non-pensioners need to organise themselves and vote.

 

[londonblue]

Sigh.... where to start.

If you are going to reduce the budget deficit then the best place to start is with the largest item of government spending - welfare.

The problem with so much political debate is that each side characterises the other as demonic. Claiming that the Conservatives would end the welfare state is hyperbolic nonsense and as daft as claims that Labour would throw open the borders to everyone. There will still be pensions, there will still be unemployment and disability benefit. We would just spend less on it.

You may think that is right, you may think it is unjust, but I would suggest the juvenile characterisations and blind rage add nothing.



Comparing actual to notional is pointless. Darling's projection did not factor the Euro crisis and he never actually had to implement his plan. Osborne made a mistake in setting a five year target. There are too many variables.

You though, Barna, can't accuse the government of too many cuts in one paragraph and then not closing the deficit quickly enough in the next.



The government has borrowed more than £100bn every year since 2010. How much more borrowing do you want?



Oh dear. The current account deficit is something completely different. We are talking about the budget deficit.

You also shouldn't bring up the 2001-08 deficits either as it was exactly because of this fiscal laxity we are in this mess.

And it would be nice if him and Camerscum would acknowledge that rather than display the childish behaviour they did in parliament yesterday.

It was like watching little children who don't want to answer some actually sensible questions so they throw insults instead. It was infuriating to watch. All I wanted was to hear him (Camerscum that is) answer some questions. The only ones he answered with any sense were (lo and behold) ones from his own party that weren't actually difficult.

He really is a tool.