Christmas Tree

ofcourse it is but that's politics.

This was really gets on my wick about the "new politics" they keep claiming. No acknowledgement of the problems caused by the banks, and the global recession that followed. Not only that they have "ring fenced" education and the "nhs" -so how can that be claimed to be irresponsible. I would also like to hear CT's response to Rentons question about the Osborne/Cameron response to the sub-prime crisis for your last point see above. With regard to the banks bit your wasting your time. Every newly elected government blames the last government for everything including the weather. That's just politics I'm afraid. It's like labour blames everything to do with manufacturing decline on Thatcher and not the fact that countries like china could build ships for a tenth of the price of the Uk. With regard to the ringfencing, it is only frontline jobs they have said will be ringfenced in nhs and education, it is the middle managers they are going for. This is why I get a little peeved that Labour and to a lesser extent the other two, didn't get into this before the election. If they had then voters would have had a selection of cuts to vote for. Having said that they would probably roughly be going for the same areas.

The more I read and learn about this I think this may be pretty unavoidable and theirgambling not so much on avoiding it, but rather of getting in and out of it within 4 years so the last year before election they can say " see, the pain was worth it, everythings rosy, vote for us". I can't see how that would ever be a desirable situation, it's one that should be avoided at any cost, as it would delay growth, and therefore delay the reduction of the deficit, the very thing they want to avoid? More unemployed = less tax revenue + more money on benefits = more deficit. Am I missing something here? The alternatives. They pump money in and it gets worse, no meanigful growth.

Seriously, I think the leaders have looked at 3 possible scenarious. 1. The economy will grow sufficiently to wipe out the defecit over the next five years. Keep pumping money in and it will come right. 2. The economy is only going to bump along for the next five years with miniscule growth so extra money pumped in will make little difference other than vastly increasing the debt. Even bigger cuts and tax rises will be needed then. 3. Tax and cut now and gamble that it will work out with less pain than option 2. I think (as will probably be announced next Monday), they have ruled out option 1 and see option 3 as the lesser of two evils. Hows my economist training going btw But those three options aren't independent of each other are they? Meaning if you cut back too much now you run the risk of halting, or even reversing, growth, which will lead to more pain overall. It's a question of balance and whether you are confident the tories can get it right. I've asked you several times now on your opinion of their policies during the crash itself and you seem unwilling, or unable, to give an answer (re: letting NR go to the wall, recapitalising the banks, and providing fiscal stimulus). If we can agree, along with most analysts, that their policies during that time would have been catastrophic, how confident does that make you of the tory decision making machine now? Simon Jenkins --- The Guardian In the heat of the battle I would probably say it was the right decision, but as with all things, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION being an example, these decisions will be debated for many years to come as the writer expresses is already happening in Business Schools. He also raises the point that had the banks being nationalised, rather than bailed out, we would have had more control on getting money through to small business's. Would it have been the end of the world? It wasnt in the states? Did they panic? Apparrently its something like 1 trillion thats being thrown at this and its mostly gone down a black hole. That would have cleared the national debt, the defecit and left enough over for a few crisps. The truth is I dont know and dont know enough of the facts that were able at the time to even begin to guess. Sure the banks are doing okay again now, but at a very great cost to this country for years to come. Your whole question though is geared towards the tories got it wrong so I cant trust them now..... What I would say, as Ive said many times is that All parties agree the right course of action is tax and cut All parties agree this should start next year All parties agree around 60 - 70 billion is the figure to be cut So your concerns over whether this is the right policy this time are backed by every political party in the country and the entire g20. Surely thats good enough for you? You ofcourse will mention the "timing". This however relates to the 6 billion savings being found in this financial year. Surely even you can now see this was election scaremongering by Labour? The 6 billion saved this year is peanuts compared to what is to come next year and will make no difference whatsoever over a period of 12 months.

The more I read and learn about this I think this may be pretty unavoidable and theirgambling not so much on avoiding it, but rather of getting in and out of it within 4 years so the last year before election they can say " see, the pain was worth it, everythings rosy, vote for us".

Seriously, I think the leaders have looked at 3 possible scenarious. 1. The economy will grow sufficiently to wipe out the defecit over the next five years. Keep pumping money in and it will come right. 2. The economy is only going to bump along for the next five years with miniscule growth so extra money pumped in will make little difference other than vastly increasing the debt. Even bigger cuts and tax rises will be needed then. 3. Tax and cut now and gamble that it will work out with less pain than option 2. I think (as will probably be announced next Monday), they have ruled out option 1 and see option 3 as the lesser of two evils. Hows my economist training going btw

Guess thats why he only works for Newsnight

Love this advert for Irn Bru (p.s. what ever happened to snakehips)

Drove past three horses today on grassland at the side of the road and all three of them had a horsy stot on and showing teeth in a sort of grinning way. If I didnt know better I would swear each one of them was smugly, in a rasta sort of way saying...."Yeah whiteboy, its big aint it". Now maybe Im just having one of those days but fucking hell Ive now developed a weird phobia of horses.

One of the first times I went to London for a match when I was about 17 I ended up walking from Regent St and towards the Palace and I couldn't help thinking how good it would be to go back in time and ship the workers who paid for it all down there to see the wealth so we could have a French style revolution. Trouble is the peasants in this country have been too beaten down by the whole monarchy/aristocracy bullshit (which is of course is its entire purpose). ;) Fuck me you must be a right trotsky or summit 17 in London for your first toon match and your thinking about the down trodden workers from up north. One of the first - it was an overnight job, wandering the streets after the market pubs shut and before the normal ones opened. Have I not mentioned my desire to see the first one thousand people in line to the throne executed before? (Now a named list of 1454 thanks to Wikipedia).

One of the first times I went to London for a match when I was about 17 I ended up walking from Regent St and towards the Palace and I couldn't help thinking how good it would be to go back in time and ship the workers who paid for it all down there to see the wealth so we could have a French style revolution. Trouble is the peasants in this country have been too beaten down by the whole monarchy/aristocracy bullshit (which is of course is its entire purpose). ;) Fuck me you must be a right trotsky or summit 17 in London for your first toon match and your thinking about the down trodden workers from up north.

Fok

Good performance by George at the dispatch box.

Is that true as a percentage of GDP? not sure in what terms they mean it. The full report is on the fitch site but you have to sign up / it's free tho I think.

Pound falls on Fitch warning on UK deficit 'challenge' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10264721.stm

Anyway, 15 minutes til Georgy porgy pudding and pie, reveals his cuts and makes us cry!

I think all parties were/are running scared of the markets and almost asking what's okay with them to do - none have/had the courage to suggest anything different. Wanting a "boom" is a bit of a misnomer but even with my very limited economic knowledge I recognise that growth seems to have been "easy" to come by for most of the time that I can remember. Parky and the complete collapse of the system aside, I don't think a defeatist acceptance that any kind of good days can never be achieved again is realistic. As I said, economic growth is the norm, not the exception, at least it has been for over half a century. The more I read about this the more scared I get. Not because of the enormity of our debt or deficit (quite the contrary, I feel fairly reassured by reading about it), but because of my fears we are being led by an incompetent government. Seriously, joking aside, which bit about all parties reccomending tax rises and cuts do you not get. Even the g20 agree with the policy Spain are doing it, Germany are doing it....... Please ignore if your just on the wum.

I think all parties were/are running scared of the markets and almost asking what's okay with them to do - none have/had the courage to suggest anything different. Wanting a "boom" is a bit of a misnomer but even with my very limited economic knowledge I recognise that growth seems to have been "easy" to come by for most of the time that I can remember. Parky and the complete collapse of the system aside, I don't think a defeatist acceptance that any kind of good days can never be achieved again is realistic. I hope your right but I think I could be enrolling on team Parky. If Chez was right then Labour and Torys would simply bide their time till it all came good. The fact that none of them are following his suggestion, suggest to me that they can't see it coming good. All of us would probably agree that the only real thing that's kept the country going over the last 13 years was the finance boom. That's gone. I know it sounds defeatest but until someone can seriously offer a better outlook........ Team Parky

but we are already means testing them for child tax credit! Just do away with child benefit all together and add it to the tax credit system.

I would most definitely but its not the Conservative way, most of whom probably still believe we are heavily taxed or living in 'rip off Britain'. They've already plucked an arbritrary figure of 80% cuts and 20% tax increases, haven't they? There's no logic in that, just pure tory ideology. Labours figures were going to be 70% cuts and 30% tax increases. Not much difference really Link? We should neither be cutting spending or raising taxes, we should be stimulating the economy. This will reduce the deficit in a much more effective way. By the way, i dont come from a 'theoretical position' on these issues CT, i come from an evidence-based perspective. Macro models are built on data from history, its not theoretical physics. They might not handle shocks very well (it wouldnt be a shock if you could see it coming) but they do predict things like the Japanese experience since 1996 for example. Link = The Labour rep on Newsnight (not google). While I understand your position, no party is reccomending what you suggest. They are all reccomending tax rises and cuts. The other problem with stimulus is that there's not a lot out there to stimulate. Labour has been chucking money in but with little manufacturing, no finance boom and banks not lending, there is only so long you can keep fanning a fire with no spark. This is why I asked you and matt where you could see the next boom coming from. This, Imo, is the reason all parties are commited to tax and cut. They too can see no prospect of a boom in the future.

Benefits aren't waste. The job of a government is to tax the wealthy members of society and distribute it to the poor so that no-one is left in poverty. The biggest shame is they've not been taking enough from the wealthy....and the Tories plan to take less. I find it incredible that any working man would be flag waving for increased crippling cuts. Spain aren't having it... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10261567.stm I didnt say they were But you did say they should be cut. We are overspending and need to save money, surely Stopping child benefit payments to Mike Ashley and Richard Branson would be a good start? But you said to £15k+ households. Well you tell me where you think it should be cut off. Regardless what figure you come up with the points still the same, I would rather see the partys tackle these issues than get rid of people like peaspud who sounds like he is actually saving us money. BP's profit in the last quarter were £3.6Bn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...oil-prices-rise I don't know what their current tax bill is, but the most recent one I can find said it was 20%, so using that, they paid £720m in tax over those three months. If they paid what any person on a good salary pays, you could double that. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/jan/11/oilandpetrol It is estimated that in 2008, £12.6 million of public money was lost through benefit fraud. http://www.stopbenefitfraudni.gov.uk/cost.htm £12.6m...in a YEAR!!! Compared to BP's favourable tax rate saving them £720m in just 3 months. If you increased BP's rate of tax by 0.045% (less than one twentieth of a percent), you'd cover the cost of benefit fraud. Interesting but you didn't answer the question

I would most definitely but its not the Conservative way, most of whom probably still believe we are heavily taxed or living in 'rip off Britain'. They've already plucked an arbritrary figure of 80% cuts and 20% tax increases, haven't they? There's no logic in that, just pure tory ideology. Labours figures were going to be 70% cuts and 30% tax increases. Not much difference really

it doesn't really matter what we are like compared to our neighbours, the fact that every party is backing deep cuts should tell you the problem is serious.

Benefits aren't waste. The job of a government is to tax the wealthy members of society and distribute it to the poor so that no-one is left in poverty. The biggest shame is they've not been taking enough from the wealthy....and the Tories plan to take less. I find it incredible that any working man would be flag waving for increased crippling cuts. Spain aren't having it... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10261567.stm I didnt say they were But you did say they should be cut. We are overspending and need to save money, surely Stopping child benefit payments to Mike Ashley and Richard Branson would be a good start? But you said to £15k+ households. Well you tell me where you think it should be cut off. Regardless what figure you come up with the points still the same, I would rather see the partys tackle these issues than get rid of people like peaspud who sounds like he is actually saving us money.

Benefits aren't waste. The job of a government is to tax the wealthy members of society and distribute it to the poor so that no-one is left in poverty. The biggest shame is they've not been taking enough from the wealthy....and the Tories plan to take less. I find it incredible that any working man would be flag waving for increased crippling cuts. Spain aren't having it... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10261567.stm I didnt say they were But you did say they should be cut. We are overspending and need to save money, surely Stopping child benefit payments to Mike Ashley and Richard Branson would be a good start?