Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[King Emlyn]

The Tories must be in absolute clover with all these cuts, like a kid in a candy shop.

[Hermes]

The Tories must be in absolute clover with all these cuts, like a kid in a candy shop.

 

We've had more than a decade of a government spending money that it didn't have. Somebody had to act responsibly eventually.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

We've had more than a decade of a government spending money that it didn't have. Somebody had to act responsibly eventually.

 

This isn't acting responsibly.

[Anubis]

We've had more than a decade of a government spending money that it didn't have. Somebody had to act responsibly eventually.

 

What a shame it isn't the ConDems.

[Dirk]

But they told us the previous government had overspent on quangos and unnecessary back office staff. Surely these policemen are needed to patrol the wastelands of broken Britain.

[Hermes]

This isn't acting responsibly.

 

Okay, maybe we should just keep spending billions and put up the income tax rate .

 

Are you willing to pay for it?

[Section_31]

Okay, maybe we should just keep spending billions and put up the income tax rate .

 

Are you willing to pay for it?

 

Nah, we should just make the banks pay for the damage they've done and make those among us who are the most wealthy - i.e not the jobless or people on incapacity benefit - foot their fair share of the burden.

 

Instead, we've got a war on benefits, a war on the public sector, and a war on the north. Didn't see that coming.

 

As I've said before, the credit crunch was the Tories' 9/11, and the cuts are its Patriot Act.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Okay, maybe we should just keep spending billions and put up the income tax rate .

 

No Hermes, that would be ridiculous.

[Hermes]

No Hermes, that would be ridiculous.

 

£155 billion overspent by Labour last year. A minimum of £750 for every working person.

[Section_31]

£155 billion overspent by Labour last year. A minimum of £750 for every working person.

 

With taxpayers set to receive a profit from the bank bailout, and with the British economy undergoing its fastest 'boom' since 2002, it could be argued that they did speculate to accumulate.

 

Ask yourself what the place would have looked like if Osborne had been in charge back then, seeing as they were content to allow the banks to do a Charles Darwin, and were also against the idea of pumping cash into building projects, many of which stopped construction firms and the like from going to the wall - firms which employ people - people who pay taxes and who spend money on consumer goods.

 

OECD says UK economy ahead of rivals | This is Money

 

Britain is faring better than other developed nations as the global recovery falters, a leading international watchdog declared last night.

 

But Government austerity measures may need to be delayed to prevent a double-dip recession, the report added.

 

 

The rate of new car sales has plumeted since the end of the scrappage scheme, that'll be manufacturing jobs going soon and more people on the dole.

 

No wonder the Tories are taking a hatchet to benefits, they're planning on sending millions more to the dole queue and don't want to foot the bill.

 

Getting the dole situation in order before you destroy jobs is similar to Thatcher's stokepiling of coal and upping the wages of the army and police as she plotted the destruction of the working class. And we all know how well that worked don't we? As sales of White Lightning will confirm.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

£155 billion overspent by Labour last year. A minimum of £750 for every working person.

 

I bet you're really, really good at jigsaws. You must put one piece on the table and profess to have the complete picture.

 

Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the Conservatives being responsible?

[dennis tooth]

Okay, maybe we should just keep spending billions and put up the income tax rate .

 

Are you willing to pay for it?

 

Er trident would cover any cost, you idiot. This won't.

[Hermes]

No wonder the Tories are taking a hatchet to benefits, they're planning on sending millions more to the dole queue and don't want to foot the bill.

 

 

So you think the Tories are the party that puts people on the dole? Name one Labour government that reduced unemployment during it's time in office.

 

You won't find one, because it's never happened - ever.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

So you think the Tories are the party that puts people on the dole? Name one Labour government that reduced unemployment during it's time in office.

 

You won't find one, because it's never happened - ever.

 

Again, just a piece of the puzzle. If you'd step outside of your myopic viewpoint for a second, you'd see that the 10 year period between 1997 right up 'til the global crisis hit, you'd see that dropped dramatically from the time they took over from the Tories. Then the crisis hit. Then the jobs went.

 

I'd be surprised if we don't see 3.5m unemployed, if not higher, under this government once the full onslaught of cuts hits.

[VladimirIlyich]

So you think the Tories are the party that puts people on the dole? Name one Labour government that reduced unemployment during it's time in office.

 

You won't find one, because it's never happened - ever.

 

Only according to 'official' figures.

 

I was on the dole in the 80s when according to 'official' figures there were only 2 million unemployed when in reality it was easily twice that.

 

Maybe the reason unemployment rises under a labour government is because they reveal the true figures and dont use massaged numbers that exclude hundreds of thousands of people under one scheme or another.

[Hermes]

If you'd step outside of your myopic viewpoint for a second, you'd see that the 10 year period between 1997 right up 'til the global crisis hit, you'd see that dropped dramatically from the time they took over from the Tories. Then the crisis hit. Then the jobs went.

 

 

Comical. It happened on their watch. And your excuses for all the other Labour Governments are?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Comical.

 

It's a fucking fact. It might be funny to you that many hundreds of thousands of our friends and neighbors are going to be out of work, struggling to pay their mortgages and bills because of the party you champion as responsible saviours are going to make regressive, ideologically motivated cuts. I don't find it anywhere near as funny as you.

 

It happened on their watch. And your excuses for all the other Labour Governments are?

 

Why would I make excuses for other Labour governments? I'm not affiliated with Labour - or any other political party - so I'm not going to make excuses for them. I just wanted a fact out there to counter your bilious nonsense.

[Strontium]

They're only cutting waste. It's an efficiency drive. The gentry generally don't have a requirement for police officers. Why should they pay?

 

 

You know full well that the wealthy have more need of police officers, not less, since they have the potential to lose more from the loss of public order. That's one of the main justifications for progressive tax, remember.

 

I'd be surprised if we don't see 3.5m unemployed, if not higher, under this government once the full onslaught of cuts hits.

 

 

I don't suppose it'd be too much to expect that these doom and gloom predictions are knocked on the head for a bit, would it? It's a bit unfair to slam governments for things they haven't actually done yet.

 

Maybe the reason unemployment rises under a labour government is because they reveal the true figures and dont use massaged numbers that exclude hundreds of thousands of people under one scheme or another.

 

 

Labour has been as guilty of massaging the figures at least as much as anyone else. Just look at how many people were shifted onto incapacity benefit, or into higher education.

[Hermes]

Only according to 'official' figures.

 

 

Oh, right. FFS, did you go around counting them yourself?

[VladimirIlyich]

Labour has been as guilty of massaging the figures at least as much as anyone else. Just look at how many people were shifted onto incapacity benefit, or into higher education.

 

Funnily enough,I also remember this happening all through the Thatcher and Major governments too.

 

I was one of those statistics on various Mickey Mouse training schemes too.

 

Both as guilty as each other.

[Strontium]

Hey, don't expect me to defend the Major or Thatcher governments, from the Tories' unreconstructed days ;)

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't suppose it'd be too much to expect that these doom and gloom predictions are knocked on the head for a bit, would it? It's a bit unfair to slam governments for things they haven't actually done yet.

 

Be fair, it's just a prediction. I'm not slamming them for it. I'll have plenty of ammunition to do that if my prediction comes true. You seem very eager for me to stop saying things. Whether it's 'stop calling cuts ideological', 'stop calling it a global crisis', or stop making predictions.

 

 

Hey, don't expect me to defend the Major or Thatcher governments, from the Tories' unreconstructed days ;)

 

New Conservatism, just like the old Conservatism ;)

[Strontium]

Be fair, it's just a prediction. I'm not slamming them for it. I'll have plenty of ammunition to do that if my prediction comes true. You seem very eager for me to stop saying things. Whether it's 'stop calling cuts ideological', 'stop calling it a global crisis', or stop making predictions.

 

 

It's just so heavy, man. I'm all about the PLUR. All this negativity makes me sad.

[L19red]

You know full well that the wealthy have more need of police officers, not less, since they have the potential to lose more from the loss of public order. That's one of the main justifications for progressive tax, remember.

 

while we wait for this apocalyptic scenario its worth remembering that the majority of crimes takes place within a mile or two of the criminals home so if you live in a sink estate you are much more likely to be mugged or robbed by some dreadful baghead than if you live in an expensive area.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It's just so heavy, man. I'm all about the PLUR. All this negativity makes me sad.

 

I've not read this yet (I want to read it when I look at the paper in a bit, with a nice cup of tea and breakfast), but it's the reason why there's so much doom and gloom.

 

Outside of my own personal predictions and opinions on the actions being take, you read people you respect and trust saying they same or worse, then you tend to get a bit doomy and a touch gloomy.