Mecky Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Just about everyone economist in the land as told the government that their actions are wrong. Everyone knows what the score is, except the die-hard blue brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Don't forget that they've sold everything not bolted down, from gold to schools... Then given the rest away to their families! What families? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrogo Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Just about everyone economist in the land as told the government that their actions are wrong. Everyone knows what the score is, except the die-hard blue brigade. I remember the conservatives stating that the gap in public services would be picked up by the private sector. I wonder who the major share holders in such companies will be? I recall Hessletine in the 80's owning shares in various arms companies. Wouldn't suprise me if the latest set of millionare conservatives pull similar scams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Just about everyone economist in the land as told the government that their actions are wrong. Everyone knows what the score is, except the die-hard blue brigade. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/24/george-osborne-spending-cuts-city-reaction Business organisations and City economists welcomed today's long-awaited announcement of £6.25bn of public spending cuts as proof that the coalition government is taking swift action to reduce the record budget deficit – but warned that the planned savings are just the beginning. The CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce, which have all been vocal in calling for action to curb public spending, all applauded the cuts. Miles Templeman, IoD director general, said: "We very much welcome the start the government has made to tackling the deficit with these spending reductions. Clearly this is only beginning of the cuts given the scale of the challenge, but the direction of travel is right." His counterpart at the CBI, Richard Lambert, said: "It is encouraging that the Treasury has managed to find slightly bigger savings than first expected. The measures announced by the chancellor, including departmental spending cuts and a civil service recruitment freeze, are painful but necessary steps to demonstrate the UK's seriousness about tackling the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 Average public sector worker costs about 14k per year. The government wants to reduce this, so paying them £66 per week is a lot cheaper. You've forgotten to mention the cost of the following: Rent, Council Tax, Partner allowance, childrens allowance,Free prescriptions, Free school meals. When these are added on the difference between what we pay for a worker and what we pay to keep someone unemployed makes it stupid to not keep people in work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/24/george-osborne-spending-cuts-city-reaction Business organisations and City economists welcomed today's long-awaited announcement of £6.25bn of public spending cuts as proof that the coalition government is taking swift action to reduce the record budget deficit – but warned that the planned savings are just the beginning. Of course businesses are going to say that, if you have more people fighting for jobs then you are able to pay them less. So the businesses increase their profits whilst the workers see their standard of living reduced. Thanks once again Nick for letting this shower into power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Just about everyone economist in the land as told the government that their actions are wrong. Everyone knows what the score is, except the die-hard blue brigade. Do they? IMF tells Britain: next government must move fast to cut budget deficit (20 May 2009) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/imf-uk-forecast IMF backs coalition spending cuts (27 September 2010) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11419937 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Of course businesses are going to say that, if you have more people fighting for jobs then you are able to pay them less. So the businesses increase their profits whilst the workers see their standard of living reduced. Thanks once again Nick for letting this shower into power. What is it about reading simple words that you find so difficult? requote... Business organisations and City economists welcomed today's long-awaited announcement of £6.25bn of public spending cuts as proof that the coalition government is taking swift action to reduce the record budget deficit – but warned that the planned savings are just the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 Do they? IMF tells Britain: next government must move fast to cut budget deficit (20 May 2009) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/imf-uk-forecast IMF backs coalition spending cuts (27 September 2010) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11419937 You can cut the deficit three way: Increase income Reduce spending Sell assetts The first hits the well-off, whilst the second and third hits the poor, Guess what, the Government choose the second option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It seems the current Government has once again got its sums wrong and they’ve under-estimated the additional cost of rising Unemployment. I know both parties have been out of power for a while and that potential for errors exist as a consequence of this, but could someone please get them to check and double-check their figures before they start trying to feed us nonsense we suspect isn’t true. Regarding the point, High Unemployment is shocking (we always seem to get it when the Tories are in power), so why can’t we be a little bit more sensible in this by reducing the hours of those in work and consequently getting others into work, and reducing the Welfare Bill. Whilst we are on this subject, can we have the age for claiming your Retirement Pension brought back down to 65 to free up jobs for people currently unemployed. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Rising-Unemployment-Will-Cost-An-Extra-14bn-According-To-The-Office-For-Budget-Responsibility/Article/201101115878715?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15878715_Rising_Unemployment_Will_Cost_An_Extra_%3F1.4bn%2C_According_To_The_Office_For_Budget_Responsibility Must be a price worth paying? Labour could afford to sell £10.5 billion of gold reserves in a slump for £3.5 billion against the advice of their advisors....so £1.4 billion is a drop in the ocean! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now