Dc Understands The House Horror That Lies Ahead

[Mega]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10904958

Ok, its milk for tots & i am all for them getting it....................but it makes the point. Tory/Lib now have seen the books, Vince,DC,Ozzy......all full of fire for cuts before the election & now VERY sheepish. The fact is they are trying not to cut ANYTHING!

I can only imagine the true horror that must have struck them when they discovered that they were inherting not a dymanic cutting edge nation, but a bankupt former USSR type east european state. The smell of FEAR on discovering that the Econermy was the STATE!......even the manufactoring was dependant on State. They can't cut, even a small move will detonate the house market.............& they know it.

At present they have money from "QE1" which will last to the last the start 2011, the BOE has an undertable deal with the FED to buy US debt if they buy ours.......both can't last & DC must now know he made the biggest mistake in Tory history by taking power now..............he should have allowed GB to finsh the job (& Labour).

When it comes, its going to be FAR worse than i expected.

Mike

[Executive Sadman]

It doesnt matter. If liebour get anywhere near power before some kind of 'event' (hyperinflation, currency adjustment, debt default) has taken place the drivers of private enterprise will have left the country. Liebour can bring about communism with the scraps that are left. Think Cuba but without the nice weather and dancing girls, just the Miliband brothers fiddling over which word to add to the 'possible racist insults' list or new ways of convincing the freezing masses who cant afford to buy heating oil that they need to be taxed more to stop global warming.

[@contradevian]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10904958

Ok, its milk for tots & i am all for them getting it....................but it makes the point. Tory/Lib now have seen the books, Vince,DC,Ozzy......all full of fire for cuts before the election & now VERY sheepish. The fact is they are trying not to cut ANYTHING!

I can only imagine the true horror that must have struck them when they discovered that they were inherting not a dymanic cutting edge nation, but a bankupt former USSR type east european state. The smell of FEAR on discovering that the Econermy was the STATE!......even the manufactoring was dependant on State. They can't cut, even a small move will detonate the house market.............& they know it.

At present they have money from "QE1" which will last to the last the start 2011, the BOE has an undertable deal with the FED to buy US debt if they buy ours.......both can't last & DC must now know he made the biggest mistake in Tory history by taking power now..............he should have allowed GB to finsh the job (& Labour).

When it comes, its going to be FAR worse than i expected.

Mike

[huw]

This will be politically rather than fiscally motivated, because of the Tory Milk Snatching precedent.

Cutting it and re-targeting the resources would have been sensible IMO -- if parents can afford private daycare, surely they can afford 189ml of milk?

[DTMark]

So far there's been plenty of talk of cuts, however as far as I know, nothing has come into effect yet.

There's a scenario that I can see playing out, and I suspect that the Conservatives (as opposed to the coalition) can see the potential for this too:

As the cuts begin to take effect, the LibDems - who may well have been instrumental in planning and executing them - decide to back away and publicly dissent. The LibDems see themselves as being more closely allied to Labour anyway.

That, on top of the riots in the streets (I give it 3 years) causes the collapse of the coalition. That leaves us with no effective Government and paves the way for a rejuventated Labour party to return to power with a significant majority.

While that might sound like the theory of madness, it's worth remembering that, actually, because of (most people would say, in spite of) their economic record [of handing out cash no questions asked to feckless, lazy people], there is a huge underclass only too ready to return Labour to Government to quell the cuts, regardless of whether we can afford it or not.

The last Labour Government taught the country that there's an endless pot of money (in fact, an endless stream of borrowing via PFI and running a deficit) and those nasty Conservatives have put the lid back on the pot.

This is the calm before the storm.

[guitarman001]

Most people I know agree Labour ruined the economy (well, those with brains). They're also disappointed with the Conservatives - don't seem to have followed through on things... cuts, bottling it on CGT etc. There's a strong ill feeling toward feral youths, druggy parents and immigrants getting jobs before Brits - and then high house prices and government/banking etc greed. I've heard from people I never would have expected it from that they will be voting far right next election (I'm not advocating anything!!). It does seem as if nothing has changed.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Cutting it and re-targeting the resources would have been sensible IMO -- if parents can afford private daycare, surely they can afford 189ml of milk?

Hmmm...that makes two parent working sound like some kind of lifestyle choice rather than the economic necessity it is for most.

[guitarman001]

Two parents working - what a joke. Not wishing to sound like an &rse, but I would much rather houses were based on one salary and the wife could stay at home to bring up kids if she wants. Nowadays all prices reflect the situation where two work - higher prices, yay! And the kids surely can't have as good an upbringing like that.

[Jadoube]

This will be politically rather than fiscally motivated, because of the Tory Milk Snatching precedent.

Cutting it and re-targeting the resources would have been sensible IMO -- if parents can afford private daycare, surely they can afford 189ml of milk?

Agreed, a perfectly sensible policy to consider. A decision entirely based on political imagery.

If the same happens to other policies can we assume cuts will only be applied to people that are acceptable political targets - those who can be , or have been, demonised? I wonder whether this will be a good time to be an individual, or indeed any sort of 'different' person the media decide they don't like.

[Guest Noodle]

This will be politically rather than fiscally motivated, because of the Tory Milk Snatching precedent.

Cutting it and re-targeting the resources would have been sensible IMO -- if parents can afford private daycare, surely they can afford 189ml of milk?

Mine drinks at least a litre a day, sometimes two.

Strong bones!

[Sledgehead]

Two parents working - what a joke. Not wishing to sound like an &rse, but I would much rather houses were based on one salary and the wife could stay at home to bring up kids if she wants. Nowadays all prices reflect the situation where two work - higher prices, yay! And the kids surely can't have as good an upbringing like that.

Isn't it always the case that today's "choices" become tomorrow's necessities?

The day the banks gave people the choice to borrow more fully on two wages was the day the population should have stood up and shouted "No!". To mix metaphores, whinging about the price of a kids bottle of milk ten years on is a clear example of wanting one's cake + eat it after the horse has bolted.

I never had my milk paid for when I was a kid. In fact I never had milk at school. How come we can afford it now? Besides, parents can claim ~£100,000 for every kid they raise from taxpayers, and that doesn't even include housing (a family in Soton claims £100,000 a year to house their horde), education, social services ....etc etc.

Given that investment managers steel £100,000 on avergae from each investor, plus these tax costs, the avergae citizen could in theory simply be gifted a private pension pot of £200,000 IF they didn't have to pay for other's lifestyles.

[profitofdoom]

Mine drinks at least a litre a day, sometimes two.

Strong bones!

Yes,just what they need some extra protein.Walked past McD's this am on my way to the counting house,the little darlings were all stocking up on their Supermacs and thick shakes.No wonder half the teenagers I see weigh more than I do.

[Sledgehead]

Mine drinks at least a litre a day, sometimes two.

Strong bones!

or kidney stones!

[Sledgehead]

Agreed, a perfectly sensible policy to consider. A decision entirely based on political imagery.

If the same happens to other policies can we assume cuts will only be applied to people that are acceptable political targets -

Are you suggesting parents are acceptable political targets? Best not put yurself forward as a campaign manager any time soon methinks!

[daniel stallion]

So far there's been plenty of talk of cuts, however as far as I know, nothing has come into effect yet.

There's a scenario that I can see playing out, and I suspect that the Conservatives (as opposed to the coalition) can see the potential for this too:

As the cuts begin to take effect, the LibDems - who may well have been instrumental in planning and executing them - decide to back away and publicly dissent. The LibDems see themselves as being more closely allied to Labour anyway.

That, on top of the riots in the streets (I give it 3 years) causes the collapse of the coalition. That leaves us with no effective Government and paves the way for a rejuventated Labour party to return to power with a significant majority.

While that might sound like the theory of madness, it's worth remembering that, actually, because of (most people would say, in spite of) their economic record [of handing out cash no questions asked to feckless, lazy people], there is a huge underclass only too ready to return Labour to Government to quell the cuts, regardless of whether we can afford it or not.

The last Labour Government taught the country that there's an endless pot of money (in fact, an endless stream of borrowing via PFI and running a deficit) and those nasty Conservatives have put the lid back on the pot.

This is the calm before the storm.

I'm not sure about that. But I think you are spot on that there is a massive swathe of the population that would see the contraction of the economy, squeezing everyone towards the 'bottom' as an optimal situation. They don't really care that they have to rely on handouts to live, but utterly resent the middle classes and above for having the ability to acquire certain assets. This underclass don't really strive for these assets, they just want everyone not to be able to acquire them.

That is the problem I have with Labour (or at least the myth they project). They claim to want a balanced, equal society. However, they know perfectly well that the equality will only occur with the middle classes moving towards the lower/under class - the upper classes will simply skim off the excess. But this is what lots of people would be happy with.

[Woot]

Hmmm...that makes two parent working sound like some kind of lifestyle choice rather than the economic necessity it is for most.

+1

Many second income earners find that they are almost paying for the privilege of working, by the time they have paid for childcare, commuting, work clothes etc. For some who have had a career, it is important to maintain a skill set and they cannot take a break for a few years then have any hope of returning to their profession. However, for others it is simply a way to buy the kids' shoes and the small margin of income is essential. The whole mortgage to income ratio was historically based on a single income, yet now it is increasingly based on joint incomes.

I agree that a third of a pint of milk is not expensive, but there are some children from some families for whom this is of benefit. One way to deal with this may be means-testing milk provision, but this would serve to single out less well-off kids out amongst their peers - something that 'free school lunches' already does. Also, it makes provision for those kids whose parents do not prioritize the children's needs and don't provide appropriately for them. My sister taught in a primary school where one child in particular gave cause for concern; a home visit was arranged and she discovered the child subsisted on jam sandwiches outside school, had no toys at all (was playing with an empty bottle), and had no access to books or drawing \ writing materials - the milk question is a small one, but it provides a useful safety net for some.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

All about saving money vs. political capital.

Saving a billion quid and causing a political storm is one thing. 50 million quid is quite another. Especially when little children or animals are involved.

There are lots of similar high political impact low cost projects that won't be touched. Similarly there are a lot of low political impact high cost projects that may well be decimated.

[Sledgehead]

Also, it makes provision for those kids whose parents do not prioritize the children's needs and don't provide appropriately for them. My sister taught in a primary school where one child in particular gave cause for concern; a home visit was arranged and she discovered the child subsisted on jam sandwiches outside school, had no toys at all (was playing with an empty bottle), and had no access to books or drawing \ writing materials - the milk question is a small one, but it provides a useful safety net for some.

And the more that state provides the less they will.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Most people I know agree Labour ruined the economy (well, those with brains). They're also disappointed with the Conservatives - don't seem to have followed through on things... cuts, bottling it on CGT etc. There's a strong ill feeling toward feral youths, druggy parents and immigrants getting jobs before Brits - and then high house prices and government/banking etc greed. I've heard from people I never would have expected it from that they will be voting far right next election (I'm not advocating anything!!). It does seem as if nothing has changed.

The problem is that a terrifying proportion of the population don't have brains (or, more accurately, haven't been educated to use them effectively), and that Labour will make sure that they speak to that ill feeling in any subsequent election campaign. The Labour leadership candidates may be venal, expense-troughing, power-motivated psychotics, but they're not (with the possible exception of Diane Abbott, who only got anywhere near her current position thanks to positive discrimination) stupid. They had their fingers burnt in the last election by failing to address that ill feeling, and I doubt if they'll do that twice.

[huw]

Hmmm...that makes two parent working sound like some kind of lifestyle choice rather than the economic necessity it is for most.

Fair point on the necessity of two-parent working; however that doesn't alter the point that the majority could afford milk (just as the parents who don't put their under-fives in daycare must). ISTM that targetting the help more precisely/efficiently would have been a positive thing.

Mrs Milton had said the milk scheme was too expensive, and the government was considering increasing the value of Healthy Start vouchers for the poorest families instead.

I'd guess that rolling it into the Healthy Start scheme would have saved admin costs. I can't find out how many children are in receipt of this free milk, but it would be interesting to calculate how much it costs per litre, vs the supermarket price of milk.

[Jadoube]

Are you suggesting parents are acceptable political targets? Best not put yurself forward as a campaign manager any time soon methinks!

What odds are you giving that the following might become acceptable political targets at some time?

single parents

the unemployed (whether or not they are claiming benefit)

the ill (conditions that generate less sympathy or can by portrayed as wasteful or faking it)

tenants (can't have their whinges holding back the industrious landlords)

public sector workers (the ones who do something useful, not the managers who don't)

social workers (if the next media binge is mistakenly taking into care)

social workers( if the next media binge is failing to take into care)

drinkers (at least those who drink outside the home)

musicians and similar outdoor performers

football fans

compared to, say,

the elderly

homeowners

employers

the police

bankers (I wish)

[daniel stallion]

What odds are you giving that the following might become acceptable political targets at some time?

single parents

the unemployed (whether or not they are claiming benefit)

the ill (conditions that generate less sympathy or can by portrayed as wasteful or faking it)

tenants (can't have their whinges holding back the industrious landlords)

public sector workers (the ones who do something useful, not the managers who don't)

social workers (if the next media binge is mistakenly taking into care)

social workers( if the next media binge is failing to take into care)

drinkers (at least those who drink outside the home)

musicians and similar outdoor performers

football fans

compared to, say,

the elderly

homeowners

employers

the police

bankers (I wish)

Sorry to somewhat hijack your post, I know it was a minor point. However .....

Not all public sector managers do nothing useful and certainly not all non-managers are useful, by a long, long, long way. The unions and the left in general would like us to all believe all bankers are evil and all front line public sector workers are virtuous, hardworking and essential. It makes it easy to rant and whip up hysteria. It's complete bo11ocks.