Cost of eliminating the deficit? Bankrupting the organisations that make the country run. No contradiction there, then.

I can only hope the Government's refusal to think through their own policy will be balanced by their inability to add up the numbers.

VInce Cable thinks we're Greece.

The Tories think we are America.

What could possibly go wrong?

It wouldn't surprise me if they cut legal aid as they like I do probably envisage many lawsuits coming up due to negligence claims regarding the total fall in the effectiveness of all state bodies due to their irresponsible policies.

Deaths on roads from the loss of speed cameras, deaths in the privatised health services due to emphasis on profit margins by scrupulous privateers and deaths across the board relating to the cuts made to welfare and the public services and those organisations who were in effect saving lives through their social welfare programmes. Think I'm being a bit extreme just wait and see the evidence is already building up.

On a lighter note if that's possible - my immediate thought when Ken Clarke had put his plans through early was that he wanted to get off on his hols. Has to get his priorities right.

The figures looming largest have been 25% and 40% – the indicative budget cuts the Treasury has asked departments to draw up.

The words looming largest are ideological, dogmatic and sell-out

Bevan said the language of priorities was the religion of socialism. It should in fact be the religion of good government, of every stripe. Brokering first and thinking later is the opposite of that.

Economics pursuing growth and increasing well-being, is the religion of socialism. This lot are the devil incarnate, economically illiterate, reckless and immoral.

Come off the fence, Guardian. Call a spade a spade! Economically illiterate, reckless and immoral.

IDS is reforming welfare, just as the Tories always do, by throwing millions into destitution.

The effect of that will be that tens of thousands of people will be removed from IDS's department, the DWP, and be passed to the Home Office and Justice, as these people resort to crime to sustain themselves.

If I were Ken, or Teresa, I would have a serious word in IDS's shell like...

We have been here before, haven't we?

Will they ever learn from there mistakes?

RockandRoll -

If I were Ken, or Teresa, I would have a serious word in IDS's shell like...

Ken and the homophobe are just hoping WE have forgotten that we've been here before.

Once the cuts start, we'll ALL remember.

Seriously, despite all the aggressive talk - this lot are gonna follow Labour's deficit plans - 35billion cuts and no start till 2011!

They're plagiarists writ large!

Shams to the Core!

lightacandle

It wouldn't surprise me if they cut legal aid as they like I do probably envisage many lawsuits coming up due to negligence claims regarding the total fall in the effectiveness of all state bodies due to their irresponsible policies.

Deaths on roads from the loss of speed cameras, deaths in the privatised health services due to emphasis on profit margins by scrupulous privateers and deaths across the board relating to the cuts made to welfare and the public services and those organisations who were in effect saving lives through their social welfare programmes.

If those are the kind of spurious bullshit claims that legal aid is being used for then the government are clearly making the right decision in cutting it back

Why are you all so shocked?

Everyone knew this would happen.

The Tories are Tories. They destroy everything society has built and ensure the rich do OK. Last time I checked that is what they have always done.

Only difference is this time they are being helped by a bunch of people who will on one hand vote for the things to be done, then pop up on camera to tell you how horrid they feel, like Simon Hughes and St Vince.

The other crucial difference is that institutions like the Guardian have bought the line these cuts need to be done on this scale at this speed and supported teh Lib Dem hype that it would all be so different.

So how this editor can have the gaul to write how awful it will now be I have no idea.

Where did you put your "X" Mr Rusbridger? All I hope is that you find yourself in a dole queue with the people you helped put there, but sadly I doubt that will happen until this paper is just a sadder version of the Telegraph with a better website.

Cuts are apolitical, everyone agrees, where they fall is political. Cuts can reapportion wealth as much as can bonuses but, as calminthestorm observed, you voted for it, you got it. A NYTimes reader posted the following:
'Welcome, UK, to the "race to the bottom!" I bet we Americans still get there first though.' -- E. Nowak

After 65 years of rotten idiotic government which refused to address, let alone tackle, the real issues nor acknowledge the country's real position in the world, anywhere would turn into the nightmare that Britain is soon going to become.

Left and right have always been wrong but Britain's toxic tribal politics has given us nothing but pendulum government. Now the country is entering the barbarian zone. In principle, it will have reverted to what it was in the period immediately after the Napoleonic wars.

RonanPt

Race to the bottom - sums it up perfectly.

Apparently lemmings don't race to cliffs every once in a while and commit mass suicide for no good reason as was once thought ..... that's left to Cameron's Britain.

calminthestorm
11 Aug 2010, 1:35AM

Where did you put your "X" Mr Rusbridger?

Quite! One would hope that the Guardian would admit its disgraceful error before the LibDem Conference at least.

For 'qwertboi' re 12:29AM:

......pursuing growth and increasing well-being......

It is time to recognise that that is now an oxymoron.
(Assuming that you mean 'growth of GDP', the Grossly Delusional Parameter.)

Back in Bevan's time there was correlation between the two, but, even then, causation was very iffy.
Over the past three decades, there hasn't even been correlation.
And over the past few years, pursuing growth has decreased well-being.

If Governments are serious about reducing debt and raising tax revenue to pay for their services the only sensible solution is to look to the financial industry for the money. This would not be a punishment for the crisis that has brought the world's economies to the brink of disaster but simply because it is the best way to raise money without damaging the economy or the financial markets. The Tobin tax on transactions in the currency, stock and commodity markets could raise billions without causing a ripple in the financial pond. Cracking down on the use of tax havens and tax avoidance schemes that favor the wealthy is another necessity coupled with caps on the excessive boardroom remuneration packages that have led to a widening of the wealth gap that has become unsustainable in a democratic society. Making Government efficient is one thing adding thousands to the job queues can only lead to more recession and the risk of social unrest.

Haven't you heard...they're " re-defining our role with the state"

A PR phrase for brutal cuts...

Michael Gove, The Playground Snatcher sums it up perfectly.

It is all very well for the author of this article to argue that the reductions in Government spending are being rushed in and not precisely administered to the maximum advantage. But the comments above seem to be being made in complete forgetfulness of the situation when the result of the GE became known.

The pound was poised to continue its plunge if the incoming Government did not indicate that Britain's bill for interest payments on its borrowings was going to be reined in.

Without clear commitment to fiscal prudence, you would now be paying a lot more for your imports. And it will still happen unless the Government 'walks the walk'.

Debtors can't be choosers.

For 'peterfieldman', re 6:53 AM: The Tobin tax on transactions in the currency, stock and commodity markets could raise billions without causing a ripple in the financial pond.

I agrre that the long-overdue Tobin tax would not cause a ripple in the useful part of the financial pond, but it would drain the harmful, gambling side of it.
And what a good thing that would be!!!

Some context:

UK levels of public spending are not particularly high:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2010-en/10/01/01/10-01-01-g3.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2010-73-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

They've moved from being below average for the OECD in 1997 to being slightly above average now, but still below average for the EU and less than France, Italy, or any Benelux or Scandinavian country.

UK does not have high overall tax levels - still below average for OECD and EU:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2010-en/10/05/01/10-05-01-g1.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2010-83-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

Even after the crisis hit, the UK's debt was below average for the OECD and had increased by less than the OECD average over the previous 10 years:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2010-en/10/01/02/10-01-02-g1.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2010-74-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

So the rush to drive up unemployment and stall the economy, due to a desire to cut too much too soon, seems driven by ideological dogmatism, not common sense.

Could someone remind me - why are the LibDems supporting this again?

Perhaps wily old Mr Clarke thinks he will get relatively lenient treatment by settling early.

I very much doubt that Kenneth Clarke is thinking that. He knows, as a previous Chancellor, that even if his Department comes up with a plan to operate on a 40% budget reduction, and even if that plan is accepted, the Treasury will not just sit back. His Department's spending will be looked at again in future PES rounds when the cuts made this year will be forgotten.

I can't see any Department clearing its spending plans with Alexander and Osborne alone. Cuts on the scale demanded must bring sensitive political issues to the fore on which Cameron and Clegg must take a view. If they are not involved in the process, agreements between Departments and the Treasury will come undone. Just think nursery school milk.

For 'physiocrat', re 3:32 AM:

......the nightmare that Britain is soon going to become....... the country is entering the barbarian zone. In principle, it will have reverted to what it was in the period immediately after the Napoleonic wars.

Managing on what fuel it had (some coal, thanks to Newcomen's steam pump and then the great production that came with Watt's steam engine) and on what food it grew for itself.

But there were only about 8 million of them to feed.

I agree with your use of the word 'nightmare'.

whollymoley
11 Aug 2010, 7:20AM

Could someone remind me - why are the LibDems supporting this again?

Great post whollymoley.

I think you might find that only a handful of LibDems are supporting this. The pbi of the LibDems seem annoyed, embarrassed, or unable to explain why they doorstepped folk with a wholly different view than the one their leader had - but hadn't told anyone - at the time they were doing the doorstepping!

wholleymolley

Could someone remind me - why are the LibDems supporting this again?

Answers on a post card please....

@whollymoley
11 Aug 2010, 7:20AM

They've moved from being below average for the OECD in 1997 to being slightly above average now, but still below average for the EU and less than France, Italy, or any Benelux or Scandinavian country.

These figures are out of date and the point is the TREND not one year out of isolation. See below:

UK does not have high overall tax levels - still below average for OECD and EU~:

And that is exactly the point, even Left-wingers, as opposed to Right-wingers get that the NuLabour Government wants lower taxes but high spending public services...hence the deficit. If you want you can also say - do not finance long term public spending on the tax receipts from a housing and financial booms as when the bust comes the deficit will explode!

Even after the crisis hit, the UK's debt was below average for the OECD and had increased by less than the OECD average over the previous 10 years

One 2008 is out of date. Go and buy an Economist and you will get the latest figures. Second, the point is that Government was running a deficit of around 3% at the height of a boom. Given that the UK has one of the highest Public Deficits means that the TREND is much worse than it needed to be. Germany is at 5% whilst the UK is at approx 10% now. So at the rate the Government would add 30% debt onto the books in just three years - with debt at about 60% we are heading for 100% of GDP without a turn around of the situation (Improved tax receipts if you want, tax raises or spending cuts something has to happen).

Lastly, on debt not all debt is equal. Comparing Germany's debt which some of is because of the reconstruction of East Germany is like comparing someone who goes into debt to buy a house with some one who buys a Plasma High Definition Television... Not All Debt is Equal. Funny how NuLabour put the more socially and economic debt on PFI...but eh that is another debate.

I know debt and deficit is not understood by left-wingers - every day some one has to point this out on CIF - the deficit is the todays problems the debt is tomorrows if the deficit is not tackled.

In 1989 the Public Sector deficit was in surplus 2 or 3% - national debt was at 27% - whilst the then Tory Administration made blunders with interest rate policy...it turned out the fiscal policy was the right one for the business cycle. The then coming recession resulted in a public deficit of about 7% (then post-war average). So Brown got it wrong...just admit it...he ran a 3% deficit at the high of the boom...national debt was already rising from a low fo about 29% in 2002, I think, to 37% in about 2007. The trend was all wrong from a Keynesian perspective....

Stanford...noticing the apologist will not accept that NuLabour made any mistakes... sad really as they will never learn about finance until they DO.

PS. At least 5% of the deficit is due to Browns over spending, in my book. - so half of the cuts are his and NuLabour fault.

stanford

And that is exactly the point, even Left-wingers, as opposed to Right-wingers get that the NuLabour Government wants lower taxes but high spending public services...hence the deficit. If you want you can also say - do not finance long term public spending on the tax receipts from a housing and financial booms as when the bust comes the deficit will explode!

But one can also see that any deficit reduction package that insists on 4:1 cuts versus taxes is unjustified - our spending and taxation levels are just not that high relative to other industrialised nations.

the point is that Government was running a deficit of around 3% at the height of a boom... So Brown got it wrong...just admit it...he ran a 3% deficit at the high of the boom...national debt was already rising from a low fo about 29% in 2002, I think, to 37% in about 2007.

But I don't deny that Brown got things wrong - just as I don't argue that some cuts are not necessary - the question is how much and in what context?

The OECD figures clearly show that the UK's TREND in rising debt was below average and the debt was still below average even shortly after the crisis hit.

I'm happy to look at more recent figures if you have them - though they're likely to be less reliable and comparable.

This editorial is just plain wrong. If you start from the position "What should this department do?" you will get a long wish list and a very big total. If you start from the position "We can only afford £x" then it becomes a question of priorities. Basically, what politics is all about. Daft editorial.

@whollymoley

Thanks for the reply. I have a lot to do at work so can not stay too long. Anyhow your wrote:

The OECD figures clearly show that the UK's TREND in rising debt was below average and the debt was still below average even shortly after the crisis hit.

The whole point is to compare apples with apples. The fact there is such a high deficit, the highest in the OECD, is due to some reasons. anyhow, here are some comments:

1. Comparing just tax receipt is misleading as some tax receipts are more stable than others. So for instance, it may be the case that in Germany more government money is raised via Income tax which are more stable over the business cycle than housing tax receipts. Therefore, if that was to be the case - to then point out that Germany had before the recession a deficit of about 3% (which it did) proves that the UK deficit trend was then sustainable; would be a superficial financial analysis of the situation.

2. Debt vs Deficit again: It may have been sustainable based on the situation as was then. That is the point about economies, we do not know what the future holds. Since I am a bore I have spent the last few weeks reading hansard and old Guardian papers and what you learn is how people project the future from the present. As an Economist, we know western economies tend to go into boom bust cycles for 10 years, so if I was to build a financial model on that basis then the UK was NOT sustainable. Brown believed his own hype about the end to "boom and bust".

3. Debt Type: Since you pay interest on debt - sustainability should be determined on what you are spending it on. The man on the street that - so if one buys a house is not necessarilly bad debt as one then has an asset. A car may even be a good asset if it helps you to do your earn money. So I would like to see on what the deficit and debt spending has bought the UK against the interest payments. I have not checked but I would expect a lot of it went on salary increases and new jobs in the public sector.

Brown had fiscal rule before about 2005/6 about "borrowing to invest" - as this then would boost growth. Have you not noticed he dropped it as he broke his own rules. So the fact he could not justify the borrowing at the end of the boom anymore just goes to show again it was not likely to be sustainable.

Look I do not care if you are arguing for higher taxes vs. public sector cuts - in the end, I am attempting to show that Brown and NuLabour got it wrong - hence the reason for the deficit being so high.... part of that judgement may be hindsight but they got it wrong! The above analysis is not even Left or Right wing as all it is saying is one not all tax receipts are stable, too there is a business cycle, borrowing to invest is better than borrowing to spend.

Stanford...off to make some money...
Have a good day and Left-wingers - remember there is a difference between deficit and debt!!!!

The cuts don't seem to be about prioritising ( as suggested by eddiep). They seem to be about cutting what is easiest to cut in the fastest possible time. Little or no regard appears to be being taken of the long term consequences. The Treasury has made it clear that those who cut last will have to cut most.

Just imagine the biographies, diaries, secret minutes of these politicians in a few years time. I remember thinking along those lines in the 1980s about what was really going on. And guess what it was all as bad and as corrupt as I had imagined below the sleek surface.

I certainly hope that some writing for this newspaper remember who they supported and the words they used on these pages. I'm sure that other will remember.

We are living through a shameful period and will look back on it with regret and sadness.

stanford 9:46

Good post, but I think you are wasting your time.

What should happen now is that every department should identify its priorities according to what they should do to retain/improve social coherence, equality, wealth distribution, and "fairness" in taking the pain. This priority then is costed according to the budgets available. Anything that can not be paid for will have to be dropped.

Of course this assumes one important thing ... that the level of cuts are necessary and justified. this is where the "left" or even NuLabour needs to start making a case. So far they have conspicuously failed to do so, and I can only assume that this has been a strategic policy decision. they obviously hope that the coalition will simply p*ss everyone off, and then an early election will bring NuLab back into power.

So, rather than develop a genuinely new approach, they want to get back into power through default. HoHum, such is politics UK-style.

stanford

Look I do not care if you are arguing for higher taxes vs. public sector cuts - in the end, I am attempting to show that Brown and NuLabour got it wrong - hence the reason for the deficit being so high.... part of that judgement may be hindsight but they got it wrong!

Fine - maybe it is great fun pointing out what other people have got wrong in retrospect.

But right now the priority is surely to prevent the current government from making more unnecessary mistakes - no?

@whollymoley
11 Aug 2010, 10:01AM

Fine - maybe it is great fun pointing out what other people have got wrong in retrospect. But right now the priority is surely to prevent the current government from making more unnecessary mistakes - no?

Good point. Not sure of the answers though.

I would have to do some number crunching to make so judgements on what are likely to be the best options. Sorry, I do not have any glib replies. The best I can say is both side of the cuts debate are taking a leap in the dark. Wolfgang and a few of the best FT commentator admit that - No one really knows. But that does not make for a great tribal political debate to say!!!! I DO NOT KNOW.

..so I do not have much of an opinion. The best I did with my spare time on the Weekend was read some old Guardian archive papers (cost me 50 quid! bloody expensive) and Hansard (80s and 90s recession) to see how the hubris and folly of politicians knows no bounds. They switch arguments to suit their position. Policy stances are dropped and new ones are taken without every admitting they got something wrong or are not sure....

Overall, I prefer a little or academics to politics but to go down that road would mean turning CIF into more graphs, numbers and statistics.... Now that would be interesting...but I am not sure the average CIFers want to be rid of ConDem, Liebour type chat....

Stanford...having a wet dream about analysing some numbers!!!!
(Now you have to stop distracting me from my work - have a good day and you have given me an idea to finally set-up an Economics statistics database for number crunching.....)

RockAnRoll
11 Aug 2010, 12:39AM

Will they ever learn from there mistakes?

Because they never own up to them.

30 YEARS OF.........

Closing down industry

Selling the family silver

Latterly growing the population at a rapid rate(so that immigrants could "pay our pensions" and similar inanities)

Putting the eggs in the City of London basket - and stinking eggs they turned out to be

Using the oil and gas as income, investing sod all

Running up massive deficits latterly

We are completely and utterly screwed, and there is no way out of it

Meanwhile in an alternative universe: as the BoE revises down its growth forecasts the Guardian runs an editorial questioning Mr Darling's relaxed approach to deficit reduction. It warns of a looming debt crisis and even more savage cuts in 2011 if the sums fail to add up. Commentators criticise the Guardian for urging us to vite LIbDem and allowing Brown to cling to power.

Seriously, I think we need to free ourselves of the delusion that either strategy came without serious risks, or indeed that a "middle path" would somehow be better.

It may just be that we were screwed anyway.

The problem is that in this country, at this time, you CAN'T HAVE the conversation about what the government is doing or should do.

The moment anyone suggests anything be dropped -- anything, anything at all, from those glossy "aren't we brilliant" newsletters from the council through to burying the dead, anything -- everyone and their dog's special interest group piles in and they and the public sector unions start predicting the sky will fall, crying "Oh won't anyone think of the blind/deaf/old people/children/squirrels..."

Not funding speed cameras has had people out on this -- oh, it'll kill children, etc. Of course, it frees up money for policemen instead who are more flexible in what they can do... but we can't even discuss having the state do DIFFERENT things. If we want more police officers, we can't cut anything else if there's a net gain for society. No, we must increase taxes and do both things... and that's how taxes and spending are ratcheting upwards, and that's how we've ended up in this mess.

You can't point to a SINGLE thing and suggest that maybe we could live without it, without it being turned into the thin end of a wedge that will definitely end in unemployed police officers and cancer patients bleeding to death on the streets.

And that leaves the only way to cut spending being top-down. But we (as a nation) MADE this environment in which we can't discuss these things. Or rather the unions did. And basically it's the people of this country who have to decide that they want to change the discussion. And at the moment, they don't. And they don't because the media and the unions keep telling them that the cuts aren't necessary and they're being done for ideological reasons and waving "banksters" about as straw men for their foaming mouth supporters to attack.

Do you still agree with Nick - if not... can we have your apology for you unqualified endorsement?

physiocrat

Left and right have always been wrong but Britain's toxic tribal politics has given us nothing but pendulum government

.

Precisely so!

If we are "all in this together" what is needed is large tax increases under a completely reformed system where, amongst many other reforms, taxes are progressive not grossly regressive as at present - and unbelievably made more regressive by the increase in VAT which Clegg opposed so fiercely before the election

What will certainly happen now is that, joyfully armed with the current Thatcher/Reagan-generated financial disaster, they will finish off the job started by Thatcher in the eighties and nineties. So we should not be surprised at the increasing privatisation of the NHS by in effect flogging it off to private firms - probably largely American . In this regard, instead of listening to Cameron we should have listened to that far-right supporter of the pre-Obama American health system: Daniel Hannan MEP.

Sadly we start off from a position where NEW Labour did very little to counter the malign effects of Thatcherism by for example bringing back into public ownership the important public services which had in effect been stolen by Thatcher (advised by her friends Hayek anad Friedman of the notorious Chicago School)and flogged off at knockdown prices to myriad rip-off inefficient private firms .In effect NEW Labour have made things easy for the doctrinaire bigots in the Tory party to finish off the job started by Thatcher

NEW Labour’s main consideration was getting back into power WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF MURDOCH of all people - and then cynically reneging on their electoral reform commitments to get rid of a grossly undemocratic Tweedle Dum/Tweedle Dee tribalist system which always gives us a minority elective dictatorship, and but for which Thatcher would never have smelt the power under which she cooperated with Reagan to bring in the greed is good society which has produced the mess we are now in.

whollymoley -

Could someone remind me - why are the LibDems supporting this again?

Because they are a right-wing party (or at least right-wing lead) whose Orange Book world view chimes very closely with that of the Conservatives. They are supporting this as a result of their strong right-wing political instincts.

nimn2003 -

'Of course this assumes one important thing ... that the level of cuts are necessary and justified. this is where the "left" or even NuLabour needs to start making a case. So far they have conspicuously failed to do so, and I can only assume that this has been a strategic policy decision'

I don't disagree, but perhaps it has as much to do with the lack of a leader at the moment? I would hope that the failures you talk about might be to do with not wishing to tie a future leader. It has to be said though that the leadership contest has gone on for way, way too long.

I would add though that I thought Harman and Darling gave a pretty good response to the budget which suggested that Labour are thinking along your lines about what is necessary and justified.

For the record, I hope that Andy Burnham wins the leadership, I think he would do a very good job, though I suspect I might get pilloried for saying it.

Setting arbitrary targets will work as well as anything. It will concentrate minds famously.
Q. How long does it take to train a Spitfire pilot ? A. as long as you've got.
Q. How many civil servants do we need ? A. As many as we can afford.

The Guardian is slowly becoming as 'Fair and Balanced' a Fox News.

You labour supporters are exactly the same as those republicans across the pond. Very bitter in defeat.

I do hope by the way that the woman who leaked her letter to the staff of the Justice Ministry gets the sack, if only on account of her appalling English: "there will be less of us" indeed !

Public life in 2010 is a numbers game. The figures looming largest have been 25% and 40% – the indicative budget cuts the Treasury has asked departments to draw up.

Of course the eventual cuts could be nowhere near either of these numbers, or in between them. I think this is what is the purpose of a spending review, determining any number of scenarios.

I know such cost management is anathema to most contributors here, but it happens quite a lot in the real world.

We imprison far too many people in this country so surely the reduction of a department bent on limiting our freedoms is a good thing?

The figures are being grabbed out of thin air at the moment. I think Osborn’s ( I grudge to say this) is actually being quite clever in that when the real cuts are announced they won't be as hard hitting or as deep as current predictions.

Clearly the government reckon their only chance of being re-elected in five years time is to front load all the pain so that they can hopefully get to the next election with sackfulls of goodies for all and the claim that all will now be well if we only vote for them again.

It is cynical politics and has fuck all to do with what is best for the country or its people. The added bonus for the tories is that most of the people who will really suffer would never have voted for them anyway. Throw in the boundary changes designed to ensure that a few more non tory votes are effectively nullified and it must be a case of trebles all round and full speed ahead.

We will have to fight these bastards harder than they expect, for longer than they expect and more wisely than they expect.

The Coalition do already agree what needs to be done:

Step 1 Cut cut cut, to be seen to do something different from Labour
Step 2 Blame Labour for having to cut cut cut in order to win 2nd term

Beyond that, they really don't know yet.

I beginning to feel as if I'm living in a Woody Allen movie, it seems remarkable that each day what comes down from the top is more surreal than the day before.

It isn't a coalition government, we should stop thinking or even saying that. The Tories are in charge of the nut house, truly crazy. I look for some semblence of intelligent life and find none. Some realism, finding none. And incredibly people will give this government a chance. I'd rather take my bent pitchfork from the shed and protest, kick an MP, perhaps there is life in among the robotic spin.

All I know is that we should not sit back and watch our lives be decimated by fools. We pay hefty taxes, we are getting nothing in return while fools lies spill out and they patronizingly pat us on the head. We are not stupid people, are we?

JoePatterson
11 Aug 2010, 11:13AM

If we are "all in this together" what is needed is large tax increases under a completely reformed system where, amongst many other reforms, taxes are progressive not grossly regressive as at present - and unbelievably made more regressive by the increase in VAT which Clegg opposed so fiercely before the election

We aren't all in this together, I don't remember an outpouring of anger when the Country went into recession and the private sector was suffering the brunt of the impact.I don't remember any widespread CiF rants against Darling and Brown.

The fact is you in the Public Sector didn't care that the Private Sector was suffering because your own jobs were safe enough and this is further evidenced by your post, you would rather that the whole population suffered 'large tax increases' just so we can keep Public Sector jobs safe.

So just the prospect of the Scorched Earth Economics is starting to damage the real economy. It is not to difficult to imagine the devasting results when the real fires are lit:

Millions on the dole, having to go through many loops to get any benefit.
Increased deaths on the roads deliberately caused by a government pleading poverty and bankruptcy. How will they be able to sleep at night?
Sate education damaged beyond repair, with the education of millions of children sabotaged by millionaires who send theirs to fee-paying schools.
The privatisation and Americanisation of the NHS, a long cherished dream of the Blue and Yellow Tories.
Increased suicides by those who will never work again.
Decreased life expectancy for those deliberately abandoned to a life on the dole by this savage and brutal government of millionaires.

WHEN CAN WE THROW THIS GANG ON THE DOLE???

These are ideological cuts. In a fair world, the Tories and Lib Dem voters will take their share of the pain. But it will be others who will bear the pain of these religious zealots practicing Taliban Economics: the sick, unemployed, homeless, and single mothers will be their prime victims.

After a few years of the grass burning, there will be new shoots of recovery, growing over the bodies of the victims, and all will be well for the survivors.

PURE DARWINIAN TALEBAN ECONOMICS.

REMEMBER: IT IS NOT WORKING UNTIL IT IS HURTING YOU, YOU AND YOU!

GOVERNMENT FOR THE MILLIONAIRES BY THE MILLIONAIRES!!!

JoePatterson

If we are "all in this together" what is needed is large tax increases under a completely reformed system where, amongst many other reforms, taxes are progressive not grossly regressive as at present - and unbelievably made more regressive by the increase in VAT which Clegg opposed so fiercely before the election.

Would you like to say what "large tax increases" you are suggesting, because you appear to deplore the "large tax increase" in VAT.

There seems to be a delusional belief on CiF that the deficit can be filled easily by "scrapping Trident, further taxes on bankers and coming down hard on tax avoidance."

Yet not a single piece of credible evidence is ever put forward that any of these measures would come anywhere close to raising the sums needed to deal with the deficit.