Conservative Spending Cuts Are Worse Than Thatcher's, Says Alan Johnson

[SHERWICK]

Alan 'Why Can't We All Be Millionaires?' Johnson speaks.

[Goat]

As much as it irks me to play the female card, I can't help but feel Thatcher is as hated as she is primarly because she's female. Look at the US Democrats - middle America preferred a black man to a woman - nobody likes Hilary - just too damned smart!

Think it comes down to the basic rule of British politics - Labour administrations always end in financial crisis which the conservatives then have to sort out.

In the 70's it was massive subsidies to heavily unionised industries, manufacturing, mining etc. In the 80's Thatcher cut these subsidies in an attempt to turn them into viable businesses rather than job creation schemes for labour supporters. It was necessary but it hurt a lot of people.

Come the 1997 and the unions combined with international competition have succeeded in killing off most of the traditional unionised sectors. Now the Labour party's paymasters belong in the public sector so they begin a 13 year long spending splurge, hidden behind talk of investment and prudence and financied by an epic credit bubble.

Now come 2010 the money is all gone and the conservative are back in power. Thanks to Gordon's incompetence we're facing massive budget cuts which will put hundreds of thousands of well paid public sector workers out of a job.

They'll hate him for that - but whose fault is it really?

[White Craw]

...most of the country agree with it.....

...because, although they haven't studied or assessed the details of this policy, they sort of know that they won't personally be affected?

[Tiger Woods?]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/09/conservative-spending-cuts-thatcher-johnson

Another way of putting this is that the most recent Labour government has screwed the pooch worse than the the one preceding Thatcher.

If he is going to be upset about swingeing cuts then perhaps he should be a member of a party that doesn't make a mess of the economy and public services?

Ffs! These people are morons or evil or both.

[profitofdoom]

The fact is neither Osborne or Johnson are experienced or qualified enough to be in charge of an economy the size of the UK's. We all know what happens when you put a muppet in the job (Crash Gordon)!!

Doesn't prefering a Posty over Lord Snooty show you have a touch of the old inverted snobbery?

Guilty as charged..and proud of it.Child Benefit has shown the Tories real colours,they are just not prepared,despite the "We are all in this together" rhetoric to have the load shared between all socio-economic groups. And BTW, I am a self-employed small businessman,having had a modestly successful 35 year career so don't get the idea that I am a Union dinosaur.I wasa member of a union for about 6 months at the age of 18.

[Warwick Yellow]

We have yet to hear the detail of the Tory cuts.

With Huhne muddying the water and the Tories playing fast and loose with the statistics, it would be premature to cite an alternative.

Labour have only just appointed their Shadow Chancellor. A little time to prepare his position will be sensible, rather than jump in as the Tories did, promising billions in painless 'economies' which have yet to be identified.

But I thought Zanu already had a full proof plan before the election to continue to invest in the public sector (aka Liebour core vote) while cutting the deficit...............could you perhaps tell us how that would have worked to give us a clue?

Or perhaps Liebour are lying as usual.

[profitofdoom]

But I thought Zanu already had a full proof plan before the election to continue to invest in the public sector (aka Liebour core vote) while cutting the deficit...............could you perhaps tell us how that would have worked to give us a clue?

Or perhaps Liebour are lying as usual.

What is a full proof plan? This reminds me of my niece aged four referring to aeroplanes leaving "paper tails" in the sky. Are you four by any chance?

[All Seeing Eye]

He said that the EFFECTS of the cuts would be worse than Thatcher's.

The Labour Party is committed to making cuts, but with the objective of minimising their effects.

We have seen how sensitively and well thought through the Osbourne choices are. e.g. Child benefit, Forgemasters.

Labour 'is' committed to making cuts? as in present tense, err no because they will not be in power for at least 5 years, or forever depending on how many thick, ignorant suckers they can persuade with their lies to vote for them at the next election. Why would any sane person take financial advice from the warmongering, bankrupting Labour joke party? Anyone who voted Labour in the last election is either a direct beneficiary of their moral and financial destruction of Britain or brain dead.

Personally I think the cuts should be directed mainly at Labour areas and the public sector. Why should non-Labour voting tax payers foot the bill? Hearing Labour voters bleating on about cuts that is the fault of the Labour government they voted for in the first place makes me so angry, I hope they lose everything, then they can keep on and on blaming the Tories and make the same mistakes again and again. Labour there's always someone else to blame, it's truly pathetic.

Edited October 11, 2010 by All Seeing Eye

[Cinzano Bianco]

We have yet to hear the detail of the Tory cuts.

With Huhne muddying the water and the Tories playing fast and loose with the statistics, it would be premature to cite an alternative.

Labour have only just appointed their Shadow Chancellor. A little time to prepare his position will be sensible, rather than jump in as the Tories did, promising billions in painless 'economies' which have yet to be identified.

However, they are 100% sure that what the nasty Tories are doing is completely wrong. So they have had time to think that bit through, obviously...

[All Seeing Eye]

Guilty as charged..and proud of it.Child Benefit has shown the Tories real colours,they are just not prepared,despite the "We are all in this together" rhetoric to have the load shared between all socio-economic groups. And BTW, I am a self-employed small businessman,having had a modestly successful 35 year career so don't get the idea that I am a Union dinosaur.I wasa member of a union for about 6 months at the age of 18.

Yer the Tories should have done what Labour did for the 2 years after the crash, absolutely nothing, but waste even more money, create even more pointless jobs and just let the debt keep going, until Britain gets closed down permanently. So Labour bankrupt the country and when the other lot come in and try to fix, Labour numpties moan about it. You are a joke mate, tell us what you would do about the huge debt then? Nothing! Your business will go down the pan within 6 months guaranteed as you clearly know nothing about basic 2+2 maths let alone economics.

The British public should be grateful that we had an alternative to guaranteed failure under Labour. Maybe the coalition should have said, we're not going to do anything, make no cuts and let the country self-destruct. Once no one would lend us any more money, call an election and tell everyone to vote Labour, let Labour tidy up their own mess FOR A CHANGE! They could then supertax the bankers and rich who would all leave the country and let Labour run the banana republic of un-great Britain, LMAO - IDIOTS IDIOTS LABOUR IDIOTS! Until the Labour party is decimated Britain will never have a future, as the cloud of ANOTHER bankrupting Labour Government will forever hang over us.

Edited October 11, 2010 by All Seeing Eye

[Damik]

http://www.guardian....hatcher-johnson

hmm, Labour moron thinks that spending 13% pa more than you earn and spend it is a way, how to start earning more than you spend .. . surely he has a brain damage

Dear Labour, if you borrow 13% and grow 4% it is not a recovery. It is a -7% depression. Talking about double dip in the case of the -7% depression really does not make any logical sense ...

[Warwick Yellow]

What is a full proof plan? This reminds me of my niece aged four referring to aeroplanes leaving "paper tails" in the sky. Are you four by any chance?

Better than engaging with the point I guess; did you get a moment of real excitement when you typed that? Surely a 'successful businessman' you should be above that

Are you an illiterate Liebour sympathiser who hates people who do better than him but struggles to add up by any chance?

[Riedquat]

The British public should be grateful that we had an alternative to guaranteed failure under Labour. Maybe the coalition should have said, we're not going to do anything, make no cuts and let the country self-destruct. Once no one would lend us any more money, call an election and tell everyone to vote Labour, let Labour tidy up their own mess FOR A CHANGE! They could then supertax the bankers and rich who would all leave the country and let Labour run the banana republic of un-great Britain, LMAO - IDIOTS IDIOTS LABOUR IDIOTS! Until the Labour party is decimated Britain will never have a future, as the cloud of ANOTHER bankrupting Labour Government will forever hang over us.

Actually that sounds like a reason to vote Labour to me. Can't see anything getting properly fixed unless it all completely crashes to the ground and has to be re-built from square one, and if it drives out the greedy self-serving scum who helped to build up the mess so much the better (including themselves, with any luck).

Edited October 11, 2010 by Riedquat

[profitofdoom]

Yer the Tories should have done what Labour did for the 2 years after the crash, absolutely nothing, but waste even more money, create even more pointless jobs and just let the debt keep going, until Britain gets closed down permanently. So Labour bankrupt the country and when the other lot come in and try to fix, Labour numpties moan about it. You are a joke mate, tell us what you would do about the huge debt then? Nothing! Your business will go down the pan within 6 months guaranteed as you clearly know nothing about basic 2+2 maths let alone economics.

The British public should be grateful that we had an alternative to guaranteed failure under Labour. Maybe the coalition should have said, we're not going to do anything, make no cuts and let the country self-destruct. Once no one would lend us any more money, call an election and tell everyone to vote Labour, let Labour tidy up their own mess FOR A CHANGE! They could then supertax the bankers and rich who would all leave the country and let Labour run the banana republic of un-great Britain, LMAO - IDIOTS IDIOTS LABOUR IDIOTS! Until the Labour party is decimated Britain will never have a future, as the cloud of ANOTHER bankrupting Labour Government will forever hang over us.

Well as I started my business in April 1977 and it now runs with all stock paid for and no need to go cap in hand to the bank like those "businessman" we see whining on the telly it would seem pretty unlikely that I wont see out another 6 months.The typical Tory businessman puts the Mrs into a Porsche,the kids into private schools and lives high on the hog.I may well decide to retire when 20% VAT comes in,not because I need to but because I don't intend to work for Cameron to give it out in handouts to his Eton pals, which - make no mistake - he will.You are obviously a lot richer than me and will no doubt be a beneficiary of his plans.Well good luck to you but I'm not working to give it to you and your ilk.And BTW Maths has always been my specialist subject.

Edited October 11, 2010 by profitofdoom

[profitofdoom]

Better than engaging with the point I guess; did you get a moment of real excitement when you typed that? Surely a 'successful businessman' you should be above that

Are you an illiterate Liebour sympathiser who hates people who do better than him but struggles to add up by any chance?

I trained as an English teacher but went into business,so no I'm not illiterate.And yes,I thought it a rather good put down.So nice of you to upgrade me from "Modestly successful" to "Successful".But I suppose modesty isn't your strongest suit.

Edited October 11, 2010 by profitofdoom

[pablopatito]

Think it comes down to the basic rule of British politics - Labour administrations always end in financial crisis which the conservatives then have to sort out.

That's right, because the economy was just brilliant under Ted Heath and Black Wednesday was a fine example of Tory economics. And let's not forget Reginald Maudling's famous line to James Callaghan "Sorry to leave it in such a mess, old ****"

Edited October 11, 2010 by pablopatito

[South Lorne]

...because, although they haven't studied or assessed the details of this policy, they sort of know that they won't personally be affected?

....but they vote.....

Edited October 11, 2010 by South Lorne

[White Craw]

....but they vote.....

For the "most of the country" who "agree" with the policy, I don't think it will be a major factor in determining voting intentions.

Could be different for those on the wrong side of the CB proposals. Especially for 45k a year families. And if implemented as planned in 2013, won't have been forgotten come the next General Election.

[lets get it right]

The Labour Party is committed to making cuts, but with the objective of minimising their effects.

Care to elaborate?

What cuts would the Labour party make?

What cuts did they say they would make in the run up to the election?

What would they do if the capital markets lost faith in their pretend cuts and refused to finance their borrowing and spending? (Answer, jack up interest rates dramatically)

Bit of a cunning stunt to minimise the effects of cuts. Perhaps they would have achieved this by not making cuts.

Even at their most frank, they only suggested they would cut the deficit by 50% over 4 years. So, even after 4 years we would still be borrowing £80 billion a year. There was no mention, ever, of getting the deficit down to zero and beginning to repay the debt which, NOW, we are paying 43 thousand million pounds interest a year on and which, by the time Labour had halved the deficit after 4 years (5 years actually because they didn't plan to start for a year), we would have another 560 thousand million pounds to pay back, on which we would be paying another 20 thousand million pounds a year in interest.

Answer me something ... from the Labour party's point of view, is there any ceiling in place regarding either the total amount they would be prepared to borrow or how much interest they would be prepared to pay?

When would they stop - when the debt interest reached 100 billion a year? WHEN?

You do realise your grandchildren will be repaying the debts Gordon Brown took on. Forget the deficit, think about the debt itself - estimated (conservatively) at best part of a trillion.

£1,000,000,000,000

What's the maximum practical level at which this debt could be repaid? £20 billion a year? That will take 50 years. At £10 billion which seems more realistic to me, it will take a 100 years to repay. Which means that my unborn grandchildren will be paying back that debt ALL THEIR LIVES. I'm sure they'll be eternally grateful that Gordon Brown and the rest of the New Labour feckwits 'did the right thing' .

Edited October 11, 2010 by Let's get it right

[lets get it right]

Guilty as charged..and proud of it.Child Benefit has shown the Tories real colours,they are just not prepared,despite the "We are all in this together" rhetoric to have the load shared between all socio-economic groups.

What's that supposed to mean? They put the load firmly on the shoulders of their natural supporters - higher rate taxpayers - and you still slag them off?

Personnally I'm willing to forego child benefit - my youngest will be too old for it by 2013.

[LetsGetReadyToTumble]

What Thatcher cuts?

I remember her destroying the unions, and a genuine boom period (not all based on debt) with YUPPIES hurtling around in GTX's, and Harry Enfield's 'Loads of Money', as tradesmen were earning a fortune.

Can't remember any significant cuts, though.

[profitofdoom]

What Thatcher cuts?

I remember her destroying the unions, and a genuine boom period (not all based on debt) with YUPPIES hurtling around in GTX's, and Harry Enfield's 'Loads of Money', as tradesmen were earning a fortune.

Can't remember any significant cuts, though.

The period you refer to is the late 80's.When she came to power in May 1979 my business had only been going two years.Her recession of 80-82 was caused exclusively by the pursuit of crackpot economics,specifically Monetarism as exponded by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School.I ended up doing a second job selling wine in the evenings to survive.This lot are the disciples of that period and Attila the Hen.

[LJAR]

The period you refer to is the late 80's.When she came to power in May 1979 my business had only been going two years.Her recession of 80-82 was caused exclusively by the pursuit of crackpot economics,specifically Monetarism as expounded by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School.I ended up doing a second job selling wine in the evenings to survive.This lot are the disciples of that period and Attila the Hen.

I'm sure everyone loved living under the conditions of high inflation that the other sort of economics was producing. Getting inflation under control necessarily produced recessions in other countries as well. That situation was just as unsustainable as our present condition is.

Cameron hasn't yet displayed anything like the balls, the conviction or the sense that Thatcher seems to have had, but if they carry on as they have started the UK will likely be a much better place for it.

Cutting benefits to high earners is a great start, we have to stop people all expecting a handout from the state. Handouts should be for those who are in need; the genuinely poor (below £15k), the unemployed, the infirm and the disabled, not everyone who wants a bit more spending money.

Edit - Thatcher barely cut anything, she was saved by high inflation, oil money and a booming economy (which she did have some hand in creating).

Edited October 11, 2010 by LJAR

[bogbrush]

We have yet to hear the detail of the Tory cuts.

With Huhne muddying the water and the Tories playing fast and loose with the statistics, it would be premature to cite an alternative.

Labour have only just appointed their Shadow Chancellor. A little time to prepare his position will be sensible, rather than jump in as the Tories did, promising billions in painless 'economies' which have yet to be identified.

Well they just had THIRTEEN YEARS to implement sound economic governence, so I'm sorry if I sound a little impatient in saying that they have had all the time anyone could ever need and they F*CKED IT UP.

[bogbrush]

Guilty as charged..and proud of it.Child Benefit has shown the Tories real colours,they are just not prepared,despite the "We are all in this together" rhetoric to have the load shared between all socio-economic groups. And BTW, I am a self-employed small businessman,having had a modestly successful 35 year career so don't get the idea that I am a Union dinosaur.I wasa member of a union for about 6 months at the age of 18.

You mean they should be taking child benefit off the poorer too?

If not, what on earth are you trying to say? It looks like you're attacking the Tories for taking CB off the better off.