Christmas Tree

I meant people with suddenly increased disposable income through tax cuts and/or who can afford it expanding the buy-to-let market. This will be particularly lucrative given their policy of moving social housing to market rents. A cynic would suggest a connection. Thats been on the cards since council houses got sold off and governments virtually ceased building them. Even though I know the tories announced a council house building programme yesterday far outweighing anything Labour have undertaken the buy to let market will continue to grow. While details are sketchy, Im all in favour of people who can afford to, paying more realistic rents which might propell some families from council stock into the private sector, therefore freeing up the council stock for those who really need it. A council house will therefore be a benefit for those who need rather than a tax payer gift for those who dont. Again I see this as one of those big areas that needs tackling rather than plodding along with the status quo. I really think these are very interesting times, politically.

I admit to gritting my teeth and saying "sounds good" to a few points. One of the scenarios I can see is the plan "working" and then huge tax cuts being made either before of after the next election. I think if that happens it will cause a huge property bubble - again. Everything comes in cycles ofcourse, but I simply cant see a repeat of the last housing boom happening in my lifetime. Its hard to imagine a mortgage lending scenario where banks are throwing mortgages at people who have no deposit and cant afford them.

Of course they rely on that selfish attitude - I'm not supposed to care about mates who are civil servants or the schools or council facilities I don't use. Shoot me for being brought up correctly but I do. ??? The point is that for a lot the fear of yesterday didnt materialise and they will start spending, thus boosting growth, thus getting out of this mess as soon as possible and one big final thus, then having the choice to spend money not on deficts but on the real needs of the day be that schools, councils or civil servant mates. CT, is this your real prognosis for the NE of England? How confident are you about this? Which bit, that the tories will pay off the deficit allowing more of the tax payers money being spent on things that matter? That the cuts were not as bad as feared? Or that people who were cautious about spending while awaiting yesterdays announcement will now feel a bit more inclined to do so? As revealed by most commentators yesterday, these cuts will take us back to 2007 levels, not the thatcher 80 years that you seem to scaremonger about. The North East wont be a wasteland, seriously. Try and be sensible in your reply, please rather than just trying to score a few points over opinion. How confident are you that there won't be a regional recession, even if there isn't a national one? Given our demographics and reliance on public sector jobs, that is. What private sector jobs are going to come in to replace the gap? Honestly, not being partisan here, but I think the future for this region is quite frightening. Already if you walk through Eldon square half the shops are boarded up, and this is one of the few prosperous shopping areas (as for Shields etc...). For the record I think there would have been really hard times ahead with Labour as well, in fact we know that, I just don't see the need to cut the deficit this quickly and it could still easily backfire - obviously I hope it works as advertised though. Btw, although I haven't looked in great detail, I have to say some parts of the budget look sensible, it's not all bad, but I can't agree with you that it is compassionate. This is going to really hurt low paid people and people out of work through no fault of their own. Now we are getting into opions and ideaology which we will not agree on. My confidence for the economy has risen following the budget for reasons I have already stated. The official independant forecasts for the economy show growth. The official independant forecasts for the employment shows growth The cuts are nowhere near as bad as expected. While pain was never avoidable (imo), I think the cuts are well thought through. With regard to Eldon square etc that is the world we are now living in. Everybody hashad to reign in their spending for several years now and we are no longer maxing credit cards, getting cheap loans and re-mortgaging houses to spend on luxuries. Not a bad thing really for a decent society. You are right that we would have had similar cuts under Labour. They claim they wouldnt have been as bad but could you really have seen a weaker Labour government being anywhere near as bold in reforms as the coalition have been? They would have left welfare for another day / government meaning that departments would probably have been hit just as hard. Infact Darlings plans in March were for 20% cuts. I also think the public like the idea of the pain being out of the way in 4 years rather than over a longer period that would happen under Labours current plans. I promise this is not Partisan, but I also dont think Labour still have the skill set to have run this government. Thats not a dig just a fact that Partys in power use up the best people as they dwindle and imo it takes a period of opposition to clear out the dreggs and give the new people chance to find their way. Can you really imagine a current Labour government with all these problems to sort out, the best people used up and a continuation of infighting, this time with the Millibands both after Gordons job. I dont think I described the budget as compassionate, more Cameron as a compassionate conservative. (have to check). My man love for Cameron knows no limits and I think he is a million miles away from the "nasty tories". And nobody wants job losses whoever they are.

Come on, he may have sold but he was an embarassment otherwise. Got to say this was probably the most shambolic task I have seen in the 5 years of this series. As you say, the Pollard look alike can't even count. £1.86 unit cost for a bun? Is she retarded? He was hopeless on that second pitch in terms of delivering his decision however the decision itself was the correct one. Could tell that Kiwi lass is in merketing - she was just hell bent on booking orders and not giving a fuck if they could deliver or not. There was a massive communication failure across the team and he made the fatal flaw of taking orders before determining what was possible from a manufacturing perspective. But he was far from on his own on both those faults and if anything Paloma was way more divorced from reality than him. Don't forget that Pollard is a food business manager. If she failed at that she's got no fucking hope when it comes to something she knows fuck all about. I hate the way marketing and sales have merged these days.

Come on, he may have sold but he was an embarassment otherwise. Got to say this was probably the most shambolic task I have seen in the 5 years of this series. As you say, the Pollard look alike can't even count. £1.86 unit cost for a bun? Is she retarded? My view totally. The bloke was clueless. Hoping they start to edit out Karen Bradys short skirts and cellulite thighs as well.

Apart from a fuck off new smartphone, there's nothing I really want or need to buy in the near future Smartphones a start. Good on you Just watch the materialistic thread take off

Of course they rely on that selfish attitude - I'm not supposed to care about mates who are civil servants or the schools or council facilities I don't use. Shoot me for being brought up correctly but I do. ??? The point is that for a lot the fear of yesterday didnt materialise and they will start spending, thus boosting growth, thus getting out of this mess as soon as possible and one big final thus, then having the choice to spend money not on deficts but on the real needs of the day be that schools, councils or civil servant mates. CT, is this your real prognosis for the NE of England? How confident are you about this? Which bit, that the tories will pay off the deficit allowing more of the tax payers money being spent on things that matter? That the cuts were not as bad as feared? Or that people who were cautious about spending while awaiting yesterdays announcement will now feel a bit more inclined to do so? As revealed by most commentators yesterday, these cuts will take us back to 2007 levels, not the thatcher 80 years that you seem to scaremonger about. The North East wont be a wasteland, seriously. Try and be sensible in your reply, please rather than just trying to score a few points over opinion.

Of course they rely on that selfish attitude - I'm not supposed to care about mates who are civil servants or the schools or council facilities I don't use. Shoot me for being brought up correctly but I do. I think the most important factor for better paid people is job security, if you are secure in your job this budget may hurt a bit but you'll get by. A different story for lower paid people, people on benefits, and people without job security though. The conservative estimate (pun intended) of job losses is half a million, but in reality it is likely to be double this with the knock on effect with the private sector. This will be concentrated in the North, of course. Of course VAT is yet to come - the most regressive of taxes. Bit out of context.....The actual estimate (independant) is for job growth, year on year for the life of this parliament resulting in 1 million more in employment by the end of the parliament.

Of course they rely on that selfish attitude - I'm not supposed to care about mates who are civil servants or the schools or council facilities I don't use. Shoot me for being brought up correctly but I do. ??? The point is that for a lot the fear of yesterday didnt materialise and they will start spending, thus boosting growth, thus getting out of this mess as soon as possible and one big final thus, then having the choice to spend money not on deficts but on the real needs of the day be that schools, councils or civil servant mates.

Surely your tax is going upto 50% then? No - not by a long way - as I said on the Child benefit thread theres a perception in this country that millions earn good salaries and £44k (Cb threshold) is "middle income" - it isn't - in fact I think that level was the bottom of the top 10%. Not sure then? I thought the talk about the richest 10 % was on the big dosh and that you would fall into what Labour calls "the squeezed middle" This is what Osbourne said to the BBC I think in all honesty it will be a long time before the countrys top economist manage to trawl through the detail never mind a toontastic poster. I guess they take things like the extra you will pay through vat etc into their models for working these things out. Having listened to lots of economists over the last 24 hours on the box, its all going to boil down to whether growth continues as predicted or not. My gut feeling is that a lot of people in Britain, like yourself, will feel that it wasnt as bad as expected (which it wasnt) and we will now see the purse strings loosened pre christmas.

I think you were right yesterday to see the "context" as getting into ideaology and that we wouldnt agree on. The argument would leap off in all directions about how many of the extra staff in the NHS were doctors and how many were managers etc...

Surely your tax is going upto 50% then?

BBC Breakfast newslady, Sian Williams just done a very nice sharon stone leg cross this morning while looking into the camera and say "Its very nice down there". Sharon Stone Sian Williams That'l get the younguns watching and taking an interest in the news

Love all these think tanks ( seem to be more off them than Quangos) who try to pigeon hole everything. Anyone with common sense knows that if the economy acts better or worse than currently forecast over the next 4 years then additional action may be required. Hence why we have budgets every year. I also think that outside of Westminster very few people are in truth that interested with a calculation that class's something as progressive or regressive. Are we really saying it's a shock that benefit cuts will effect the poorest the most! And yes I do realise that if as the treasury has done, you include all the measures the action is progressive. The bottom line is, which is the important bit, is that several weeks ago when everyone was expecting the cuts to be much worse, 60% were in favour. I don't think that will have gone down much. The public will feel sorry for the 500,000 positions lost over 4 years, some through sashays etc, but will be comforted that the same people predicting these job losses also predict overall growth in employment over the same period. After those job losses the real hardest hit will be the shirkers and local councils, neither of which will bother the masses too much in these times of austerity.

Because its a discussion forum You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste. Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times? You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do. Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards. The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source. Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign. Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?. All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made. One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008. I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed. If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition. See Above FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over. Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power. The plan I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT) So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared. Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19% Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer. Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens. To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho. I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country. My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap All a bit sour grapes really this last bit I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with? Thanks for that answer - I'll be honest its more serious and specific than I expected. It will be much more interesting if we can actually discuss this without resorting to cliched party line propoganda. I make no bones about my hatred of the tories, but I don't claim to know all the answers and willl readily admit that though I cant imagine not voting Labour, they aren't always right and not all tories are completely evil So in that spirit Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?. All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made. Do you accept that pre the banking crisis and ensung recession the Labour Party was being responsible and did you agree with Cameron/Osbourne and their policy of matching Labour spending The follow on from that-and I'm not trying to be clever, partisan or catch you out, I have already admitted the tories are playing a blinder politically, is do you thnk the Tory claim of 13 years of extravagance is true,or just a political stick to beat Labour with One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008. I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed. If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition. See Above I think itw pretty widely accepted that Brown played a blinder during the banking crisis. Again in the spirit of civilised discussion I will readily concede that Brown whatever his qualities as an economist, and without doubtng his commitment or intentions, was a a terrible communicator, a lousy politician and for these reasons a disastrous PM, but it is acknowledged across the political spectrum that his (Keynsian)approach to the crisis saved the economies of Britain and Europe from plunging into deeper recession/depression. With this in mind does it worry you at all that Osbourne called every major decision to Brown differently during this period FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over. Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power. The plan I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT) So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared. Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19% Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer. Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens. To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted If its rolling back the state to 2007 levels does that mean these levels are acceptable/desirable. I realise tha politically both sides will be point scoring over this sort of statistic, but I am more interested what you think idealogically about it. I dont expect the govt to be brutally honest about it, they dont need to be. They are winning the argument with the public anyway I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho. I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country. Along with the prison reforms one of the most interesting aspects of the govt is Ian Duncan Smith's approach to welfare reforms. I dont really see how the cuts in social housing and child minding and the emphasis in leaving council housing if your job pays you enough to rent in the private sector fits in with IDS's policy of it paying to work. It seems to encourage the opposite. I get the feeling he has been a bit shafted but I am interested to see how it develops My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap All a bit sour grapes really this last bit I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with? Nah not really sour grapes, I've already said Brown was a disaster as a politician, and that Cameron/Osbourne have been played this csr very astutely. As for which cuts I agree with, thats not really a narrative I agree with. I think Labour (apart from Balls) has got it wrong aswell. I wouldnt be cutting the public sector I would be paying people to dig holes, then paying them to fill them in. I would also fully nationalising the banks we already own so we could get them to lend to small business at a decent rate and I would probably raise taxes on the top rate for a couple of years, after all we are all in it together To avoid further colours I'll answer below. 1. Labour acting responsibly. I have often said on here that I agreed with a lot of what New Labour did when first elected, however the infighting between Brown and Blair resulted in poor decisions / policy and wasted opportunities. A lot of these reforms, that all sides agree need sorting, such as welfare, univesities, public pensions, etc would have been better tackled by Labour during the good years rather than left for someone else to sort out. Instead of tackling these issues and making a real political difference, instead I think they took the easy option and just threw money at welfare. None of us are daft and a lot of this was to do with making life a lot more comfortable for their base support. And yes the tories have done in the past for their support. Still opportunities missed to reform and money wasted. 2. Brown and the banking crisis. If I had to give an answer I would probably come down on the side of Brown, however I dont know enough about it to be sure and a lot of the rumblings coming out of the states lately are about this injection of money being the wrong course of action? If it was right, you have to acknowledge that we still have a heavy price to pay for that intervention. With regard to what oppositions say, no it doesnt bother me and its pretty irrelavent. Opposition is a lot of huff and puff without much substance as we are seeing from Labour at the moment. What matters to me is what they have done in power and I have to say I think they are being very bold and reforming and if any Labour supporters can see past their biass, we have a very different conservative in Cameron. The word the commentators use is compassionate conservative?? but the fact is that he is. Commentators see this, the general public see this so Labour trying to tag him as the mext Thatcher are onto a loser, politically. 3. State levels. The 2007 levels is just a fact that economist etc were stating on newsnight which was simply highlighting that the landscape after the cuts was not quite as bleak as some seem to be painting. The bottom line is however that Im sure this government would have liked to come into power with a surplus and good economic times like Labour had when they came in. All they can really do is play the hand they've been dealt. I am more interested in the reforms tbh which I think are much more important than rises and falls in department spending. So many of the big issues of the day are being tackled and for that I give them a lot of credit, particularly in the way they are being done, such as using the Brwon report that Labour started and using Hutton etc. 4. Welfare is a wait and see job but I think things such as one overall benefit make a lot of sense. Also I dont see any reason why the taxpayer should subsidise housing for normal working couples. Assuming two couples, both with a family income of 30,000. Why should one pay the market rate of £500 per month or whatever and the other get a £200 subsidsed discount from the tax payer. Surely thats not right. Again its good to see that they are looking with new eyes at some of these areas that are just simply now outdated. 5. With regard to your last point, obviously that is a million miles away from my position, Camerons position and Red Eds position.

Have just caught up with this on I Player and fuck me your right. Spaz is a good description. 9/10 to cameron 0/10 to Red Ed. Cant see how he will last at this rate.

Can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink and all that... Just shows how ahead of the curve I was with all this. Once it became apparrent that opposition was not going to change anything they should have taken my advice and built on the good will and member base and delivered a really good supporters club. (something that tbf is scandalous a club like ours does not have). Instead, madness descended, ego battles commenced and I dare say without any change in direction, NUST will vanish without a trace very soon. Its probably a shame that they did not hold the elections, prior to membership renewal, as this would have allowed members to stand who offered something different. Now its probably on mates and apathetics who are left and as such there will be no change. Shame when all is said and done. I have to say I totally agree with you. Aye, for once, me too If you ran for chairman CT ,I reckon you'd be the best in my lifetime I would. And you'd be guaranteed a canny pre match pint at reasonable rates with topless bar staff in the supporters bar Would it accept Giros? Is he greek?

Fucking hell....Polly Renton Toynbee on question time tomorrow night........Lots of serious debate there then I hate this woman. She talks absolute drivel and encompasses everything I detest about the Guardian.

Can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink and all that... Just shows how ahead of the curve I was with all this. Once it became apparrent that opposition was not going to change anything they should have taken my advice and built on the good will and member base and delivered a really good supporters club. (something that tbf is scandalous a club like ours does not have). Instead, madness descended, ego battles commenced and I dare say without any change in direction, NUST will vanish without a trace very soon. Its probably a shame that they did not hold the elections, prior to membership renewal, as this would have allowed members to stand who offered something different. Now its probably on mates and apathetics who are left and as such there will be no change. Shame when all is said and done. I have to say I totally agree with you. Aye, for once, me too If you ran for chairman CT ,I reckon you'd be the best in my lifetime I would. And you'd be guaranteed a canny pre match pint at reasonable rates with topless bar staff in the supporters bar

Can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink and all that... Just shows how ahead of the curve I was with all this. Once it became apparrent that opposition was not going to change anything they should have taken my advice and built on the good will and member base and delivered a really good supporters club. (something that tbf is scandalous a club like ours does not have). Instead, madness descended, ego battles commenced and I dare say without any change in direction, NUST will vanish without a trace very soon. Its probably a shame that they did not hold the elections, prior to membership renewal, as this would have allowed members to stand who offered something different. Now its probably on mates and apathetics who are left and as such there will be no change. Shame when all is said and done. I have to say I totally agree with you. Aye, for once, me too If you ran for chairman CT ,I reckon you'd be the best in my lifetime

5,4,3,2.............

Because its a discussion forum You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste. Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times? You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do. Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards. The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source. Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign. Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?. One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008. If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition. FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over. They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power. I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT) Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens. I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho. My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap Good post spongebob, pretty much sums up my own feelings, right down to the fear of incompetency over idealogy. CT, regarding your graph you've googled. First, it's from a template website so its not possible to ascertain how accurate the figures are or put them in a wider context. Secondly, and more importantly, it's not measuring the right thing. You would expect the absolute number public employees to go up while the economy was booming and services were improving - you can't improve healthcare without employing more nurses and doctors etc. Unemployment fell substantially in this period, so I would expect private sector jobs also increased. However, its the relative values that are important - did the public sector grow significantly more than the private sector - it probably did a bit but by how much? Most importantly though, and what has already been shown on one of the many pages in this thread, is that public spending did not grow significantly as a proportion of the GDP. That is a fact the Conservatives should acknowledge along with the fact they pledged to match Labour in spending throughout their time prior to the banking crisis. First of all, the graph from the ons was in relation to a point I made to Alex about the public sector growing under Labour which he disputed and you I think said was a lie..... Alex said the ONS was a good source, which it was and there graph clearly shows that it grew by 16% nearly a million jobs during that time. So on that point I was right. Funny how the wigglings started already... Suprise suprise! With regard to the gdp statement you then get into ideaology and its pointless wasting too much time, particularly with yourself, discussing that. Just because GDP goes up doesnt mean you have to spend that extra money on increasing public services. Extra money could go on tax cuts, reforming the welfare state, or paying down the deficit. The truth is Labour walked into office with a fantastic economic climate, started well and then took its eye off the ball due to infighting. Without real ideas or agreement all it had left was to spend spend spend.

The Tories modernised the steel industry. The Tories and then Labour chose not to subsidise industry. The Germans chose to subsidise their industry and hold off the inevitable, however now that the subsidies have stopped they are closing all their coal mines. Industry, on the hole has gone East and no British government has tried or could change that situation. What part of "only European country in surplus" don't you understand? You started the argument about the 80's ffs and now you've whizzed through to the present day One argument at a time surely

Because its a discussion forum You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste. Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times? You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do. Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards. The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source. Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign. Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?. All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made. One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008. I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed. If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition. See Above FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over. Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power. The plan I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT) So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared. Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19% Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer. Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens. To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho. I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country. My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap All a bit sour grapes really this last bit I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with?

The Tories modernised the steel industry. The Tories and then Labour chose not to subsidise industry. The Germans chose to subsidise their industry and hold off the inevitable, however now that the subsidies have stopped they are closing all their coal mines. Industry, on the hole has gone East and no British government has tried or could change that situation.