Print Story Comprehensive Spending Review link revival
By Breaker (Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 12:01:53 PM EST) (all tags)
Or something.

I shall endeavour to maintain a non partisan line rather than a Breakermatic one during this diary.

We'll see how that one pans out...

You may want to read TE's linkladen diary, as background.

So, there was no massive spending increase under the previous government, it was a myth. 

That ~£300 billion pounds of total spending in about 1995 ended up as ~£650 billion by about 2010 is not a rise, it's investment.

Leftist darling Krugman acknowledges the need for cuts in UK public spending... "Eventually", but that cutting now is a bad idea, if we paid attention to history.  Which is what freemarketist darling Timmeh did, and concluded that a 25% devaluation of currency combined with cuts to public spending saw the recovery begin.

Shroud and bleeding stumps all across the board about "ideological" cuts, and cuts aimed at Labour stronghold areas.  "You could say that Labour deliberately put the money in one direction and the coalition by bundling them into one grant, by accident or design will redistribute the moneyin the other direction." (Warning - link is to hard right Guardian)

All this in the face of the most pitiful opposition so far.  Even the piss poor Tories did better than this from 1997 onwards.

“"Labour has, on the whole, decided that the deficit isn'’t its fault. It has, you would imagine, been invented by the Tories purely in order to allow them the cuts which they are imposing with an odious relish."
- link to ultra right wing Guardian.

Leftist decries Labour's record on the deficit "Our attempts to get to grips, in political terms, with deficit reduction have been tragi-comic. First we had the Balls plan. Then the Darling plan. Then we tried to muddle through the election with a fusion of the two. The Ballsing plan."

Labour MP Geraldine Dreadful tries to lead the fightback,  "Indeed, the people are preparing even now to board Unison sponsored buses to London; at this time of social crisis, Labour has much to be silent about!"

No wonder that The ConDems have got their point across, even in spite of the Biased BBC.

Not only is the audience of Question Time accused of being picked to be hostile to the government, the bosses have to tell their left wing employees to stop tweeting in order to preserve impartiality.  To be fair, the BBC notes that overtaxation is having an effect on ordinary people -"Living standards for those on average incomes are now in decline -- it is as if there's been a national pay cut thanks to very low wage growth and a very strong rise in taxes and prices (the highest in Western Europe) -- and that's before the rise in VAT to 20% in January. "

Wall St Journal comments: "Much of the endless City hand-wringing over the future of London and the regular threats by banks to quit can be taken with a sack load of salt. But the world has changed since the financial crisis in important ways. Bankers say they increasingly find it hard to persuade staff to move to the City. Hong Kong, Shanghai and even Dubai are seen as more glamorous and important places to forge a career. Older European professionals who used to like being based in London for the tax breaks are suddenly discovering the need to live closer to their clients and are moving back home."  "Far from being the deepest cuts in modern times, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates the proposed 3.6% real-terms cuts in public spending over fives years are only the deepest since 1976."

Red tape, Forth bridge.

Former Lib Dem Charlotte Gore notes:
"It'’s almost as if there’'s wow… like no easy answers. Except there is an easy answer: Cut spending. At least, that would be an easy answer if it wasn’'t some sort of social taboo to even considering the idea. Especially if the name of your party rhymes with “Rory”, in which case you’re especially not allowed to consider cuts, cos, you know, you'’re doing it for fun because you’'re evil".

Freemarketist darling Timmeh takes Leftist darling Johann Hari apart.

Strange it takes a rough blogger to make some useful suggestions to the leftists regarding cuts.

Righty-Right winger John Redwood MP has some words on government strategy - "I want the government  to do more to reassure public sector workers. There do need to be substantial savings from fewer employess, doing more with less. This should be done without compulsory redundancies, so all public sector workers can be reassured they will have work even if  their job is abolished. The Chancellor tells us staff turnover is running at 8%. I  have been assuming 4% in my figures. At 8% the state could reduce employee numbers by 500,000 with no redundancies  within the first two years, whilst recruiting new teachers, doctors nurses and other crucial specialist staff from outside. "

We've heard a lot of use of the word "progressive" of late; the right wing think tank IEA has some interesting words: "Firstly, it’s worth noting that the relatively affluent in Britain pay a very high proportion of the overall tax take. In terms of income tax, the highest earning 1% contribute nearly a quarter of all receipts and the top 10% account for well over half."

Not widely reported, Osbourne goes after tax evaders.

Remind me again, which are the nasty party?  Labour's Chris "Underpants" Bryant accuses Clegghead of "cleansing" then Champagne Socialist Pollytwaddle Toynbee (it's only a small villa in Tuscany you know, so it doesn't count) thinks "the Tories have a final solution for the poor".

Leftist media has had some disappointing results, as the economy grows 0.8% this quarter.

Tory bankroller, tax exile and boogeyman for leftists, Lord Ashcroft, asks "Her Majesty's Government whether they expect citizens to organise their tax affairs in order to maximise tax payable."

< Fixing stuff. | stupid head cold >
Comprehensive Spending Review link revival | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
(Comment Deleted) by aggressive cyclist (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:33:19 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by aggressive cyclist

Hmm by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:22:46 PM EST
TE had ~5 unique commenters, one of which was me. 

Which "we" do you speak for?

Are you saying the way to convince those of a leftist mindset is to proclaim early on Government decisions - before detailed analysis / reaction to analysis can be made, and a few shiny graphs are enough to swing the mindset?

[ Parent ]
at a minimum, TE is more comprehensible by garlic (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:26:02 PM EST
to a dirty foreigner like me than you tend to be. His tendency to being straight forward with his opinion rather than sarcastic also helps with understanding what he means.

[ Parent ]
Ah by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:48:07 AM EST
I'm a sarcy bugger at the best of times though.  Plus, I'm not always trying to get you to think the way I do, just to think about it.

[ Parent ]
being sarcastic as well, by garlic (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:32:43 PM EST
I understand what you're saying (here). But you've been on the internet long enough to know sarcasm doesn't work well written down in long form.

[ Parent ]
Aha by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:57:18 PM EST
But this is Sarcasm 2.0!

[ Parent ]
I would have commented by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:59:42 AM EST
But I was sitting on my hotel balcony looking across at the ruins of the palace of communism at the time.

[ Parent ]
"Palace of Communism"? by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:51:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, it was literally called that. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:53:39 AM EST
In Montenegro. The pure Soviet era hotel did have WiFi though (no lightbulbs, but WiFi), so maybe I wasn't trying to keep in touch enough.

Although the People's Palace in Glasgow Green is a brilliant place.

[ Parent ]
WiFi but no lightbulbs, hehe by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:20:56 AM EST
Sounds about right.

My google fu is weak.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by aggressive cyclist (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:07:27 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by aggressive cyclist

[ Parent ]
Diverting money oop north by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:11:58 AM EST
I don;t have any problem with Governments creating infrastructure projects as a flimsy excuse to improve employment levels, but if they;re going to do that then they should get a whole range of things built, not just a more expensive bridge.

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
That'd be the old definition of by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:29:38 AM EST

As opposed to the New Labour definition.  I've no problem with that, either.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:28:01 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by Breaker

[ Parent ]
No, those who think by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:33:38 AM EST
The lazy deserve the sweat off the brow of the hardworking.

Do you feel no sense of "all in this together", for the country that took you in and gave you an education, then a good standard of living?

Yep, I am also losing any kind of small approval I may have had for the Coalition; they're all cheeks of the same arse.  Unless we get out of this tribal, team voting mentality we're fucked.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by aggressive cyclist (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:34:58 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by aggressive cyclist

[ Parent ]
That was corrected by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:24:36 AM EST
to tribal team voting mentality, BTW.

[ Parent ]
The numbers aren't qutite as bad as they sound by lm (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 09:55:18 PM EST
If you use real pounds on that site rather than nominal pounds, the increase is from the low 380s to the 580s. The other interesting thing is that from 1995 through 1999, there is no increase (using real pounds) but beginning with 2000, there is a large increase every year. So the real question is what changed in 2000 that has held steady that was not the case from 1995 through 1999?

The other question, which I didn't bother to pay attention to is the relation to the increase in spending relative to GDP.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
That's the myth by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:54:48 AM EST
That expenditure exploded under Labour.  In real terms, expenditure went up by half again 1997-2010.

1995 we'd just nailed our last recession down better, in 1997 the Tories were booted out and Brown elected to follow Tory spending proposals for a couple of years.

From 2000 on Brown sprayed money in every direction, offset by the boom of ~2000 so as a percentage of GDP it wasn't so noticeable.  We had a bit of a wobble (as did the US) in 2005/6 which then marks an increase in spending as % of GDP.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:33:24 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky

Like rum, sodomy and the lash! by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #16 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:10:20 AM EST
Ah, Eton, still turning out the finest sailors...

[ Parent ]
Hmmmm by Phage (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:00:56 AM EST
Slightly OT.

But I have noticed that a number of communities that I frequent are tech based, and are all strongly left. I have seen strong neo-marxist opinions, where the definition of 'fair' could have been expressed by someone on the barricades.

It's a little disturbing, when just for voicing an opinion that possibly the situation was more complex than they believed, we immediately hit Godwin's as I was compared to the vilest of henchman. (as per QT when Clegg was accused of cleansing). Is it Maggie's shadow ?

I don't think so. I think it's greed. Or self interest if you prefer. When nearly 27% of the workforce is in the public sector PDF here from ONS the Conservatives are fighting a losing battle. Rather like the illegal settlements on the West Bank, when the population is yours, what does it matter what the politicians say ?

I think it's still the shadow by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:15:35 AM EST
Of Thatcher and the "Tory cuts", plus yes there are a lot of public sector workers feeling vulnerable especially ones without transferable skills.

The Guardian is becoming as vitriolic as The Mail. But the comment section is overrun with Tory trolls taking the bien-peasants apart, very amusing.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:01:12 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by Breaker

[ Parent ]
I think you meant by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:03:26 AM EST
Bien-pensants (right-thinking), but I like bien-peasants (obedient peasants).

Previous comments suppressed as my typing was way awry.

[ Parent ]
Dogmatic by Breaker (4.00 / 0) #18 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:14:10 AM EST
Most rightist websites and blogs will use reason and links to reports, research etc if a leftist turns up and posts something thoughtful (as opposed to "eeevil baby eating Toreez!").

Try and do the same on many leftist blogs, and you're immediately a baby eating Tory. 

[ Parent ]
I was a little taken aback by Phage (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:55:12 AM EST
To be labelled in those terms for suggesting that perhaps there were alternative models for the NHS. (based on Aus Medicare)

(Those damned beer-drinking-flip-flopwearing nazis.)

[ Parent ]
Likewise by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #28 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:42:54 AM EST
For suggesting the French model of funding healthcare (still free at the point of delivery, but centrally funded). 

Provided decent links to economists about how that drives competition, provided links to cancer patient outcomes under this model, and I'm a TORY TROLL!!!

[ Parent ]
Before the election by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:00:38 AM EST
I spent an entertaining time putting despondent and thoughtful messages on a major new Labour site. Far from being shot to pieces, I was getting most of them to agree they were doomed. It was like shooting fish in a barrel......

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
Ah Labourlost by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:28:52 AM EST
That was quite interesting reading, to see how far apart the Party line was from the grassroots.

But, in many cases, I'd see pretty gently worded "hmm, have you thought about this alternate view (link to mainstream paper, or the like)?" posts replied to as "TORY TROLL".  No debate, nor rebuttal.

[ Parent ]
There's your mistake by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:07:06 AM EST
Instead of posting alternatives or encouraging debate and a sense of optimism, encouragement of the feeling they were in a hole and there was no way out was much more productive...

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
Seemed that way by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:13:40 AM EST
Interesting reading now though, concentrating mainly on class warfare and TORY CUTS!

No real analysis of where they went wrong, and hence lost voters and integrity.

[ Parent ]
I thought her book by jump the ladder (4.00 / 0) #10 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:20:08 AM EST
Hard Work: Life in Low-pay Britain was pretty good but she's a pretty useless political commentator who normally gets everything wrong like her support of Gordon Brown as the saviour of the Labour Party.

The heiress Toynbee by Breaker (4.00 / 0) #15 Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:09:06 AM EST
Flip flopped from "Gordon Brown intellectual colossus" to "Gordon Brown: no ideas and no regrets".

Can't find a link for that first quote as CiF seems to not have that PT article anymore.

[ Parent ]
Comprehensive Spending Review link revival | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)