±«Óãtv

"Ed Miliband has taken a defining political step by ignoring his former boss and portraying the Tories as cutting too far too fast as they are driven by a mixture of politics and ideology."

And he's right.

"...35 business leaders ranging from the head of Asda to the chairman of GlaxoSmithKline and the chief executive of Next have written a letter, backing the chancellor's plan...."

So WallMart thinks there should be more cuts and smaller government...?

Can that be news?

Also, agree with sagamix, the cuts are too deep and too fast and they are ideologically driven. Should Milliband say other?

1#

So speaks the Sage of Hampstead.... :o\

"lashed itself to the mast of a deficit reduction plan that has more to do with the date of the next general election than with the economic cycle"

And of course, the previous incumbents never did anything that wasn't governed by the electoral cycle did they? Jesus wept, just how thick do they think we all really are? Nice to see AJ hasnt really changed though. Still the same Union soundbite man. Long on rhetoric, short on talent. This will be his 4th ministerial position he has held as either Shadow or Minister Of State and he's been an unqualified disaster in all of them.

It seems everybody has moved into the realm of fantasy economics. Cutting public sector services and jobs does not equate to reducing the deficit. Making half a million public sector workers unemployed and a further private sector half a million out of work (according to PwC who have not signed the letter) is going to slow down the recovery or even reverse it. Even focusing on transfer payments (benefits) will have significant effect on the aggregate demand in the economy and produce a reverse multiplier of economic activity.

Labour should be warning the public that what this government is all about is destroying the consensus on the welfare state - that even survived Mrs Thatcher. Cleggmeron and Osborne are in the business of reinventing the poor law and Americanising our social policy. The deficit argument is essentially a trojan horse for the extreme right.

"And he's right." - @ 1

Or partially right, rather. The other factor (perhaps more significant than either party political advantage or ideology) is that we have, in Chancellor George Osborne, a young man with a burning desire to make a name for himself. If this desire outweighs any consideration of the national interest - and all the evidence points that way - then this is not something which should be applauded. It is, in fact, reprehensible and will continue to be so even should he get lucky with the economy.

Hi Nick. Call me old fashioned but you mention asda, glaxo and next. but you dont mention their links to the conservatice party.
Asda has strong links to the Conservative Party through former CEO Archie Norman, who subsequently became a Tory MP and was a close adviser to William Hague.
Sir Christopher Gent is non-executive chairman of GlaxoSmithKline plc and a former Vodafone chief. He was chair of Young Conservatives between 1977-79.
He is also a member of the Tax Reform Commission established by George Osborne.
Simon Wolfson, Baron Wolfson of Aspley Guise is a British businessman and currently chief executive of the clothing retailer Next and a Conservative life peer. He is the son of former Next chairman David Wolfson, Baron Wolfson of Sunningdale, also a Conservative life peer.
He is a prominent supporter of the Conservative Party, having donated to David Cameron's campaign in the 2005 leadership election and co-chaired the party's Economic Competitiveness policy review. He was named by The Telegraph as the 37th-most important British conservative in 2007.

Nick...if you wanted to publish the full list of businesses backing osborne i would be happy to do a full list of all the donations they have made to the party and their affiliations to the conservatives.

So really the story headline should read


"conservatives back..conservatives"

Now or later? It's too late!

It's already happening; the economy is starting to falter again, and many thousands of people are about to find themselves unemployed and relying on state benefits until they can find themselves work. Once again we're about to go over the edge.

Sagamix #5 is right.

" ... we have, in Chancellor George Osborne, a young man with a burning desire to make a name for himself"

A similar name perhaps, to that of a previous Tory Chancellor, Winston Churchill, who put the UK back onto the gold standard. He too was motivated, in a remarkable similar way, by the opinions of self serving "experts" in the City and was too ignorant of macro economics to understand the counter arguments of the Keynesians.

The millions whose lives were ruined by Churchill's actions, eventually got their own back, when they humiliated him, in spite of his becoming a much admired war leader, by voting him out of office in 1945. One day Osbourne might become the leader of the Tory Party and suffer a similar fate.

Ah God, the usual astroturfing crowd are starting to infest the place... like Giardiasis. Must be time for lunch....

Unless these cuts come out in a planned, effective and efficient way this is a one term coalition and the country will be in line for a Labour landslide.

While I hope not the idea of paying a fortune for Aircraft Carriers without planes and then topping up that joke with another 120 billion on Trident fills me with complete disgust.

I hope we see a move to making government more accountable and open with:

+ Fewer police forces in the country
+ A combined fire and ambulance service
+ Fewer more effective schools
+ Incompetent teachers, doctors, police and public servants sacked
+ A cut in the salries of all public servants to no more than a maximum of £150,000

What I expect to see is a dog dinner of cuts that are not thought out or joined up in anyway. They will simply evidence the financial myopia of politicians who lack any business or financial understanding.

Still lets not worry the Euro will probably get parity with the pound importing a lot of inflation that will make the pain disapear faster than planned.

"6. At 10:21am on 18 Oct 2010, lefty10 wrote:

"Hi Nick. Call me old fashioned but you...."

Theres a lot of things I'd like to call you lefty, but old fashioned comes quite a significant way down the list. There are some much fruitier/industrial things nearer the top, I can assure you.

"And of course, the previous incumbents never did anything that wasn't governed by the electoral cycle did they?" - fubar @ 3

They did - for sure they did - but never quite so dead eyed and long term as this, i.e. mapping it all out 4 years ahead. There's also the world of difference between boosting the economy for electoral gain (been the practice of UK governments since the start of time) and what's happening here.

Here ... the thinking goes ... we trash it (since we can blame our "inheritance" - lol - for the measures), we push the recovery out to just before the next election, make the upswing look like it's to do with our policies. If the recovery happened too soon, it would be way too obvious that Labour's policies are due the credit. It would also risk a further downturn at an electorally inconvenient time.

So, cut too hard too soon - make a name for ourselves as tough guys - blame the previous government for the measures ("we do this in sorrow" bla bla) - push the economy down (keep blaming Labour) - take the foot off the brakes in a couple of years, let things bubble up again ... lo and behold, a "recovery" due to us! - the medicine's worked - vote for us again, please.

Totally transparent.

Don't know if you follow business and stuff but it's very like when you take over a company, you make VERY heavy provisions against this that and the other - then, couple of years into your ownership, you "realise" those provisions aren't really needed and you release them from balance sheet to profit & loss account. Hey presto, major performance boost and you look like heroes. You also make a ton of money from the resulting share price movements.

Such practice was very common in the eighties (amongst the more venal of corporate raiders) and is less so now only because people have wised up to it.

We have the political equivalent here and (hopefully) we'll be wise to this too - now that I've done my good deed for the day and pointed it out.

So we have tax dodging millionaires who support the tory party saying they support the tory party. That's a surprise.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The tories inherited modest growth as the economy bottomed out and started to climb again. Will it continue to grow? Or will taking billions out of the economy and putting millions of people in fear of losing their job stunt the growth?

We will have to see. But at the moment, growth is down, confidence is down, house prices are down, car sales are down etc etc

Let's see what is happening by Christmas - just a reduction in growth or actually back to recession?

watriler at 10.08. agree with the "reinventing poor laws and Americanisation.." quote.

My thoughts are here;



and here;

Isn't Labour boxed in on this issue as a result of a mixture of ideology and politics?

Alan Johnson's initial offering on budgetary measures was not about expenditure but yet more taxation on the banks. Presumably he was trying hard not to say anything that would displease Labour's paymaster unions.

We won't have a credible opposition until Labour spells out in some detail what it would reduce as regards expenditure.

It seems to me that what no-one has yet explained is how these huge cuts are going to revive the economy. We may make cuts of 25 to 40% which will include a lot of redundancies - it's already happening. All these people will need state benefits for some time to come - so how does this really save money? The coalition have not yet explained how they expect ex public sector people to mnove into private sector jobs when so much of the private sector depends on the public sector for the provision of its services.

I also understand that on Wednesday we will only be told headline cuts and will have to wait for the detail. Aircraft carriers without planes to carry? Hmmm, interesting times.

What other line can Labour take under the circumstances?

If the Labour Party had any gumption at all they would have dumped Brown last year or even after the election and gone into a National Coalition to manage these so-called cuts in a way they feel would have been better. However, they chose not to and now have to waffle their shock-horror way along with all the other vested interests who opportunistically took the money when it was there and who now find the money-tree has died.

The point the political class have to learn is that they are less important than the welfare of the wider economy. The attitude of Labour in power was that so long as the banks generated the cash they would spend it and, boy, did they spend it! The fact that the banks were digging the cash out of a mine marked Debt didn't both Labour at all.

Now they are going to be treated like Banquo's ghost at the feast. Cameron and Clegg might be having to play Mr. and Mrs. Macbeth but the reign of the real Macbeth was far longer and better than indicated by Shakespeare's masterpiece.

Personally, I view this cuts exercise as a bit of a circus. It won't be enough as the political class will learn nothing from it, it won't do what is needful as the economy will remain seriously imbalanced and much that needs to change will remain unaltered. There is no sense of crisis for the simple reason that government spending still remains far too high.

It is what the government does after the cuts which will be the important bit. I don't think they have even thought that far ahead yet. Now that should really worry people.

"They did - for sure they did - but never quite so dead eyed and long term as this, i.e. mapping it all out 4 years ahead. "

A verbal hand grenade reasonably well defused mate, in particular the "4 years ahead" part. I doubt Gordon ever saw anything beyond jemmying Blair out of No10 without facing the electorate.

Maybe its natural progression as the vortex of cynicism just gets deeper and deeper and swirls ever faster.

Events have a way of influencing things though Saga, that not even the most sage like can forsee. Not even St Vince. Thats going to be the complicating factor in the next 4 years which may undermine your otherwise credible, if not highly cynical, thesis.

What's the difference between a 7.5% fiscal contraction and an 8% fiscal contraction?

One was the result of the IMF forcing Denis Healey to act in return for a loan.

The second is what the coalition is proposing.

As can be seen - socialists will never stop spending unless they have it forced upon them. They merely engage the audience in a curcular debate about when to start, how hard to cut without actually ever saying what or when. They are the deficit deniers. They appoint people like Alan Johnson who spent years showering our taxes on the health service and education and now returns to catchphrase politics with 'economic masochism'.

Alan Johnson as shadow chancellor is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of women's rights.

The cuts are coming, ideology or no ideology and a virtue will be made of a necessicity.

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will just have to spend five years ont he wrong side of this debate. But then they did bankrupt the country; they are lucky to be let in the House of Commons at all.

Let the games begin...

14 -

Good grief, not another self-promoting blogger?! If we all did that the HYS board would just read as a series of links to other websites.

And what's the central thrust of the argument you make? Some nonsense about how cutting benefits for those who don't need them is wrong because it divides the rich from the poor? But putting up tax for the rich is a better idea. Er, doesn't that also divide the rich from the poor?

Besides, where's the logicin a system that says you're so wealthy we can take 41p in every extra pound you earn but so poor that you get some of it back as a tax credit or benefit. It's madness. How can we possibly justify paying (for example) winter fuel allowance to a 60 year old man, still in work and earning £500,000 a year???

And as for putting tax up, that's already on the way. NIC goes up an extra 1p next April.

There just aren't enough rich people to make a difference. The 50p tax rate has been estimated to bring in £1.6 bn a year at most. Duffer Brown gave away £12bn with the pointless temporary reduction in VAT. So it will take 7 1/2 years of the new top rate of tax just to get back the money thrown away in a few months. You want to raise the top rate more? How much more? The amount brought in would be pitifully small in comparison with the amount needed in cuts. All you'd be doing, out of political spite, is demotivating people and/or driving them away.

stan @ 8

That's a nice thought, Stan. Buried in 2018 (ish) and this time without a torch and sandwiches.

Trouble is, the political strategy is a good one. Hard to see it not succeeding (albeit only on its own terms). If the economy is resilient enough to withstand the kicking, then okay fair enough - we were right. If it isn't, some real pain (including for the poorest ... especially for the poorest) and we emerge in time for the polling day. We were right.

Blame Labour for the cuts, take credit for the (deferred) recovery.

It's a golden legacy these guys have been bequeathed and they intend to make the most of it.

#12
Sagamix, I am not sure that the economy can be predicted 4 years in advance as you seem to suggest politicians can do. But they do need a credible plan sufficiently flexible to permit adjustments as time goes by.
I am sure that you will agree that our current situation is that we are already suffering cuts imposed by the previous govt and we now seem to be facing further cuts to be announced formally later this week. I think that we can both agree that, on the face of it, any cut in govt spending threatens further recession unless there were to be a plan B, QE perhaps.
If we do agree on this then surely it follows that any cuts would be bad news, the speed and degree is largely irrelevant. The only sure way of limiting the impact of cuts is to create a climate where the private sector can replace the lost govt spending.
I would argue that growing the economy is even more important than reducing the deficit. That in times of growth countries should not be consistently running a deficit but deficits are needed get people into profitable employment when unemployment reaches unacceptable levels.
So a strong opposition should be arguing for no cuts until such times as the economy can sustain them (presumably they will announce their policy this week, including a reversing of those cuts they had already announced?). Govt should be arguing that their actual (as opposed to the spin we have been hearing) cuts will not result in a recession.

12. At 10:52am on 18 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your are being somewhat naive if you honestly think that the goverment can manipulate the markets to such a degree that they can determine when a recovery will be.

Let us go back a little while and think of what you were saying regarding the recession. I think it was something like, the goverment were not to blame for our current position it was outside forces, or something along those lines.

Well either you think the Tories are so clever that they can do something that Nu Labour couldn't do or that Nu Labour were just incompetent.

For you cant have it all ways, Nu Labour could not be held accountable for the recession or that the Tories are manipulating when we will come out of recession. For only a fool would hold back recovery at this current moment in time for we do not know what is around the corner. The BRIC countries are starting to creak and it is they who are supposed to give us the impetus to climb out of recession. Commodity prices are nothing if not volatile at present which in itself could bring about a recession. And, we still have the PIIGS in Europe who are a hanging like the sword of Damocles over the EU and the Euro.

For once I fear your duplicity has got the better of you.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Labour cannot hope to get people's attention on the cuts for the simple reason that they never came up with a detailed plan of their own.

"There's going to be the complicating factor in the next 4 years which may undermine your otherwise credible thesis." - fubar @ 18

Yes, that's possible. We may well feel like rats after a couple of years of this but, no, they don't have perfect laboratory conditions.

4. At 10:08am on 18 Oct 2010, watriler wrote:
according to PwC who have not signed the letter
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When ever have you seen any of the big four sign a letter condemning any goverment policy. Did you not see the headlines only last week,"
Government spends £1.5bn on consultants" THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE FT - THAT IS THE FINACIAL TIMES hope this is OK PD....

For if you were a partner in PwC would you risk your £1/2 to £1 million salary. Lets face it they don't even offer any challenge to goverment when carrying out an assignment let alone voice an opinion.

Link to a fairly reasonable blog dissecting the coalition's 'it's Labour's mess' theory:


But what's the alternative? Amateurs who were running ±£22bn over budget* on government spending in the last few years of their tenure?

The lesser of two evils. Great.


*Independent on Sunday investigation Jan 2010

#16
GillieBollie, I too am unsure of how exactly the govt is to stimulate the economy, regardless of the actual size of the cut in spending.
I have a related concern. How many of the "ex public sector people" will be willing to take jobs with private sector pay and conditions. I am thinking particularly of those areas in which the national public sector pay scales have "crowded out" the private sector. Only time will tell I suppose.

robin @ 19

So, the government is embarking on cuts of a similar scale to those forced upon us by the IMF in the seventies - seems to be what you're saying. Rather confirms the "economic masochism" charge, doesn't it?

Petard, Robin ... petard and own and hoisted.

"They did - for sure they did - but never quite so dead eyed and long term as this, i.e. mapping it all out 4 years ahead."

So your saying that Labour never planned as far as 4 years ahead?

How far ahead did they plan? A week? three months? Until the 12th of Never?

Doesn't strike me as very good.

Perhaps if they had looked a little further ahead, things wouldn't be in such a mess.

1. At 09:58am on 18 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
=========================================================================
Who Red Ed or one of your old favorites Darling?

How quickly they are forgotten, I am sure they will make a come back at some stage. Lets face it, if Neil Kinnock can make a come back anyone can. Although, he and his clan have done very well for themselves out of the political pot.

Just for you PD a quote from the times....

"GLENYS KINNOCK, the new minister for Europe, has amassed six publicly funded pensions worth £185,000 per year with her husband Neil, the former leader of the Labour party.

They have already received up to £8m of taxpayers’ money in pay and allowances, he as a European commissioner and she as a member of the European parliament."

The Labour opposition have put themselves in an impossible position by refusing to admit that they overspent. While they stay in that posture, two things result:-

(1) they can never get reelected, because they lack financial credibility.
(2) they persist in not presenting their detailed version of what they would have done instead, adding to a total, so that their complaints are seen as political positioning, not as serious argument.

12. sagamix wrote:
'So, cut too hard too soon - make a name for ourselves as tough guys - blame the previous government for the measures ("we do this in sorrow" bla bla) - push the economy down (keep blaming Labour) - take the foot off the brakes in a couple of years, let things bubble up again ... lo and behold, a "recovery" due to us! - the medicine's worked - vote for us again, please. Totally transparent.'

For one who isn't big on conspiracy theories this is a bit OTT isn't it, S?
I'm going to be watching out for when GO's eyes flash red.

"some real pain (including for the poorest ... especially for the poorest)"

You really are a dolt. If the Coalition is 'targetting' the poorest for 'pain', why are they putting up the tax bands AND lowering the 40% tax band starting point. This is a tax CUT which ONLY goes to the lower paid.

I'm sure the extra 900,000 who will be paying no income tax at all after next April will not understand what you are on about.

Come to think about it, I doubt anyone in the UK understand what you're on about.

Just had a thought about your '200 page' thesis on depriving home schooled children of university grants. Does it in reality just consist of "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" typed over and over again?

19. At 11:11am on 18 Oct 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:
Alan Johnson as shadow chancellor is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of women's rights.
=========================================================================
It is worse than that for he by his own admission knows nothing about economics, at least Jack the Ripper knew his way around a cadaver. However if Nu Old Labour ever get back into power the outcome would probably be the same.

25. At 11:42am on 18 Oct 2010, Kohinoor wrote:
Labour cannot hope to get people's attention on the cuts for the simple reason that they never came up with a detailed plan of their own.
=========================

The tories are in GOVERNMENT and they have not yet come up with a detailed plan.

@ kohinoor:

"Labour cannot hope to get people's attention on the cuts for the simple reason that they never came up with a detailed plan of their own."

It's not practice for oppositions to have a plan as detailed as government. The Tories never did when they were in opposition.

The reason is simple: governmnent has all the resource.. civil servants, economists, admin staff, computer power and economic models etc. to get the work done efficiently while oppositions don't have the same capacity.

Alan Johnsone has just said that Labour will accept cuts that are sensible, oppose where they are not and suggest alternatives where appropriate.

The main thing is that he believes the cuts to be too much, too soon and driven by ideology.

That's sensible.

Fubar @ 9 wrote:
Ah God, the usual astroturfing crowd are starting to infest the place

>>

I assume you mean people who disagree with you.

How very dare they!

Chris @ 27
Calm down, dear.

Nu Old Labour, NOL ( Net Operating Loss ) have shown little if any appetite to even curb their spending let alone tackle the deficit and god forbid the debt. Even Sinn Fein have come up with a plan to save £1.9bn for the Northern Ireland economy. Yes it is a little off the wall and has little substance, but hey at least they are trying. Unlike NOL who are just living up to their name.

On the cuts, I think the bus has moved on and left Labour behind.

They still seem to be singing the same song as at the election (we weren't at fault, we'll be nicer/slower than the Tories). The problem is that the electorate already rejected that view.

I cannot see that there is much future for an opposition in hoping that the country will fail to cure its ills, particularly when you are seen as the cause of those ills.

Even if there were a double-dip, I do not think that people will reward Labour at the polls. They will simply say that the government was left a really tough problem to sort out and wait for better times.

chris @ 23

"You are being somewhat naive if you honestly think that the goverment can manipulate the markets to such a degree that they can determine when a recovery will be."

They can have a good go. You're being naive if you think they won't.

"Let us go back a little while and think of what you were saying regarding the recession. I think it was something like, the goverment were not to blame for our current position it was outside forces, or something along those lines."

You think wrong, Christopher. Both domestic policy and global factors are relevant, I've always said so. One of my hobbies is exposing the Tory Story (that it was ALL down to Brown) and this has me often stressing the global and banking dimension which the offending poster - the tory story teller, as it were - has completely omitted to mention. Could be this which is confusing you.

"Well either you think the Tories are so clever that they can do something that Nu Labour couldn't do or that Nu Labour were just incompetent."

Noddy point - dealt with above.

"For you can't have it all ways, Nu Labour could not be held accountable for the recession or that the Tories are manipulating when we will come out of recession."

Ditto. Please try not to be so binary. Labour are partly to blame for the recession, the tories intend to manipulate the cycle. Both true and completely consistent. This is the way I'm having it.

"For only a fool would hold back recovery at this current moment in time for we do not know what is around the corner."

"You said it" would be the cheap retort but I'll avoid. Osborne is no fool - he's exploiting his (golden) political legacy, pls see 21 above, and he's hell bent on becoming famous. Two things are related

"The BRIC countries are starting to creak and it is they who are supposed to give us the impetus to climb out of recession. Commodity prices are nothing if not volatile at present which in itself could bring about a recession. And, we still have the PIIGS in Europe who are a hanging like the sword of Damocles over the EU and the Euro."

Yes, it's a threatening world out there. Wouldn't disagree. All the more reprehensible, therefore, to be playing fast & loose back home - to be prioritising wrongly in the things you can control.

"For once I fear your duplicity has got the better of you."

No duplicity here. You may disagree* with what I'm saying but it's a genuine view, believe me.

* wouldn't recommend this, though, I really wouldn't.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

chris @ 32,

Hey, you're doing that thing again where you make it look like I've written something I haven't (something tacky and right wing, usually).

Glenys? I'd like to comment but it's off topic. Topic is how George Osborne, in his madcap thirst for fame, is cutting too hard and doing serious damage to the UK economy.

Andy, I'm surprised (and not a little gratified and flushed of face) to see you arguing for greater state planning of the economy - there at 31.

Angling for a badge?

@BloominEck @jon112dk

Labour was meant to do a public spending review before the election and very oddly declined to do so. This was widely commented on in the press. They are now living with the consequences, which is no credible alternative to the coalition plans.

30 saga

So, the government is embarking on cuts of a similar scale to those forced upon us by the IMF in the seventies - seems to be what you're saying. Rather confirms the "economic masochism" charge, doesn't it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seems to confirm that Labour have left the economy in the same state they always leave it.

You must have a different definition of "golden legacy" to most of us.

The economy that the Tories left in 1997 versus the one that Labour left in 2010, which one would you prefer to inherit?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Gordon Brown used to shout at his colleagues that they could never win a debate between "nice Labour cuts and nasty Tory cuts". That's precisely where the coalition will want the debate to lie - demanding to know what Labour would cut instead."

This is where the country wanted the debate to lie during the election and where the debate should lie now. Unless Labour can articulate a credible alternative, then "there is no alternative" - where did we hear that before?

28#

Another chuffin' pinko lickspittle apologist.

Any credibility he may have had evaporated when he said "until the crash Gordon Brown’s reputation both nationally and internationally was of a prudent, effective, economically and financially literate manager of the nation’s money — a model of financial rectitude. From the time of the crash and his effective response to it, his reputation stood even higher."

Brownian apologist. Dismiss.

39#

No, I mean the immensely irritating, attention seeking delusional urks who do not appear on any other board, just solely on this one and have no understanding at all of the subject matter at hand.

44. At 12:19pm on 18 Oct 2010, jon112dk wrote:
Apparently we are going to have two massively expensive aircraft carriers but no airplanes that can fly off them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please rather than just regurgitate everything you read try and research a little. The UK is part of and committed to the JSF programme. The JSF will replace the Royal Navy & Royal Air Force STOVL aircraft, Sea Harriers & GR.7s as a supersonic strike fighter.

It's a good time to laugh at........ You fill in the missing words

sagamix @30

it confirms nothing at all except that one government is prepared to take the necessary action to deal with the newlabour mess whereas the labour party of the seventies was spineless and had cuts forced upon them by the IMF.

You have been in denial about the deficit since way before the election and remain so now. It is the single largest and most important issue and yet you support a party who not only created it, but have no strategy to do anything about it.

Debts accumulate interest... but this seems to have escaped all labour party members.

It's a great time to be a tory...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

45 saga

Glenys? I'd like to comment but it's off topic. Topic is how George Osborne, in his madcap thirst for fame, is cutting too hard and doing serious damage to the UK economy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The topic is WHETHER he is cutting too hard and too fast.

The task for those who think that he is cutting too hard and too fast is to produce a credible alternative. At the moment, the coalition plan seems to be the only game in town.

Chris London

Don't expect a straight answer from sagamix on gravy train labour politicians. He is one himself as a salaried employee of UNITE..as already admitted on prior posts.

So now they hide behind the twin covers of 'off topic' and 'not in government' to not answer questions about the deficit or their feather bedded members. Twas ever thus.

Looks like the only bed they are finally getting used to is the bed of a long spell sulking in opposition with exactly the same policies as pt them there; evasion and denial.

it's a great time to be a tory...

44. jon112dk

'Tory joke of the day ...

Apparently we are going to have two massively expensive aircraft carriers but no airplanes that can fly off them.'


jon, you're an embarrassment to the left. Wrong topic for a laugh at the Tories. This one's a LAL. Did you not get the memo?

@54 AS71

You're absolutely right that Labour/opposition need to produce a credible alternative - real specifics, not just principles.

"the coalition plan seems to be the only game in town"

But this doesn't make the coalitions plan the right argument. For instance, I think cuts to higher education in particular, while funding a £7billion free pre-schooling project, shows a lack of poor judgement.

49. Fubar_Saunders

Don't agree with everything he says but there are some valid points made there.

Dunno about Now Or Later... maybe Bad Al Campbell can book another Elvis impersonator to sing "Its Now Or Never" at the inevitable press conference in a couple of days once the bloodletting begins...

58#

If you subscribe exclusively to Keynes, yes.

And, with the contributors who question him, all you get back is "Ah, but the tories...."... Spare me this hatred driven bulldust of his, anyone who thinks the sun shone out of Browns' kiester upto and including the time of the crisis cannot be taken seriously.


If you dont subscribe exclusively to Keynes........

"jon, you're an embarrassment to the left."

And boy, they've got no shortage of them. An embarrassment of riches one might say.

Speaking of "no alternative".....



Denial, denial, denial. This lot probably think denial is a river in the middle east....

Run for the Hills

That highly respected economics guru Alan Johnson says it is wrong to cut so soon and so fast.

A very broad statement with no detail (again) given he was part of a disasterous Govt that caused this, I hope to be excused for completely ignoring what he has to say.

If Business leaders support this Leftie then I will go along with there advice rather than someone who has never had to make a profit in there lives,

Good at spending other Peoples money though, World Class at that