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 Hemming 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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.