Skip to main content

Labour's cuts would be more

One reason why the Coalition's cuts are less than Labour proposed is that the Coalition is really committed to reducing the deficit quickly. That means simply that people will lend money to the UK at a lower interest rate. That means less interest and hence the cuts don't need to be as much.

Simples.

Remember that Labour's lax approach to public spending means that they have to cut more.

Comments

Jerry said…
Not a total Government Rape of the poor, pretty close though.

Social Housing budget cut by 60% nice for the 500,000 people on the councils waiting Lists here in the North West,

Education budget not completely cut but since the scrapping of the BFS budget makes no change as the schools will have fallen down before the money is needed.

490,000 Public Sector Jobs lost, great, tell that to the people of Nelson in Lancashire where one of the biggest employers in the UK Tesco's shut up shop because the town is Dead, "Make work pay" how is that possible when a broad range of industries are reducing jobs by the thousands.

2.5 million people are
already unemployed, your party has agreed in cutting an additional 1 million jobs
(500,000 public sector + 500,000 private sector) Leaving 3.5 million
people without a job. Over 2 million more than before the
crises. Creating mass unemployment whilst cutting 20% of benefits can
only be described as catastrophic.

University students are leaving University with no jobs to go into, what hope do the long term unemployment people have.

Great, so we can send millions to India to fund their space programme and billions to the bottomless pit of Africa. Why not 'ring fence' the money for something useful? And what about the billions Phillip Green said could be saved in the Civil Service.

The Previous Government bailed out the banks to the tune of £800 BILLION, or does that just get forgotten about as its not the wealthy who suffer from the CSR.

It strikes me that it might be worth enquiring as to how much the families of our prime minister and chancellor are affected by the CSR when famillies on low incomes will be so catastrophically harmed by it. WE'RE all in it together, but i suspect THEY'RE in the cayman islands.

While I agree cuts have to be made thick and fast, hitting the poorest, like the ones who clean the homes of these Ministers we never voted for in Government really takes the biscuit
john said…
What matters on Social Housing is that more houses will be built in every year than over the 13 years of the Labour Government (20,000).

People cannot be housed without somewhere to live.

This approach hits the more wealthy to a greater extent than the poorest.

Popular posts from this blog

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…