The Post General Election Thread

[SWP's back]

If it was so easy to find these cuts without hurting anyone, as some are claiming, then don't you think they would have been made already? Or that Cameron would have set out where they were going to fall in great detail during the campaign? But they haven't and he didn't. That should tell you something.

Osborne made deep cuts but then had to increase borrowing as they were clearly hurting the economy and holding back growth. Not good tactics with an election looming. Now, with the election over and a majority, the gloves are off. I hope it's all as simple to balance the books as some people are saying.

There's a decent argument that can be made which states a 1.7% (£12bn) reduction in Managed Government Spending is hardly taking the piss as the increases in the past have been ideologically driven anyway and even with the proposed cuts we will still be spending a higher proportion (as a percentage of GDP) than we did during Blairs last term in office.

It's not as if all spending is looking to be cut.

 

[Damocles]

What is managed average spending and how does it compare with "real spending"?

 

[SWP's back]

I understand the Left's point that restricting child benefits will harm the child rather than the parent.

However, can you not concede that there is a huge problem when someone can be given a decent 'salary' and is put up in a house out of the price range of their working peers just because they've had a few kids? It's totally unfair on the working frugal who wait until they can financially support a family before they start one.

The issue then is how you solve it. Surely there is a middle ground option between giving these people nothing, causing children to suffer, and giving them what they receive now.

A starting point would be to pay them with food stamps instead of cash and only allow them to be used to purchase food no fags no booze as this is very bad for the children.

make it a criminal offence for retailers to break this rule and make the punishment so severe no one would do it.

Give out clothing vouchers so the Children could be clothed and shod
Explain to parents that Benefits are a short term Safety net and not a lifestyle choice

Having sky and games consoles isn't an automatic right so the tax payers will not fund either of them

make parents attend full time back to work classes and the children could be cared for in state run nurseries ( this would create quite a lot of full time jobs)

Make sitting on your arse being paid for nothing not an option I bet the numbers claiming benefits would drop immediately unemployed males could be made to do work that benefits the community making pensioners lives easier would be rewarding and satisfying

You have to admire the Tories, they've framed the debate on cuts as a battle against "welfare as a lifestyle", and re-defined the poor as nothing more than victims of their own poor life choices. "The battle against the deficit" they've framed as a growth strategy, which it isn't, rather than an ideologically driven attempt to shrink the State, which it is.

The state being enlarged was also ideologically driven.

 

[whp.blue]

A starting point would be to pay them with food stamps instead of cash and only allow them to be used to purchase food no fags no booze as this is very bad for the children.

make it a criminal offence for retailers to break this rule and make the punishment so severe no one would do it.

Give out clothing vouchers so the Children could be clothed and shod
Explain to parents that Benefits are a short term Safety net and not a lifestyle choice

Having sky and games consoles isn't an automatic right so the tax payers will not fund either of them

make parents attend full time back to work classes and the children could be cared for in state run nurseries ( this would create quite a lot of full time jobs)

Make sitting on your arse being paid for nothing not an option I bet the numbers claiming benefits would drop immediately unemployed males could be made to do work that benefits the community making pensioners lives easier would be rewarding and satisfying

You have to admire the Tories, they've framed the debate on cuts as a battle against "welfare as a lifestyle", and re-defined the poor as nothing more than victims of their own poor life choices. "The battle against the deficit" they've framed as a growth strategy, which it isn't, rather than an ideologically driven attempt to shrink the State, which it is.

The state being enlarged was also ideologically driven.

And it would seem unpalatable to the Electorate.

 

[The perfect fumble]

A starting point would be to pay them with food stamps instead of cash and only allow them to be used to purchase food no fags no booze as this is very bad for the children.

make it a criminal offence for retailers to break this rule and make the punishment so severe no one would do it.

Give out clothing vouchers so the Children could be clothed and shod
Explain to parents that Benefits are a short term Safety net and not a lifestyle choice

Having sky and games consoles isn't an automatic right so the tax payers will not fund either of them

make parents attend full time back to work classes and the children could be cared for in state run nurseries ( this would create quite a lot of full time jobs)

Make sitting on your arse being paid for nothing not an option I bet the numbers claiming benefits would drop immediately unemployed males could be made to do work that benefits the community making pensioners lives easier would be rewarding and satisfying

You have to admire the Tories, they've framed the debate on cuts as a battle against "welfare as a lifestyle", and re-defined the poor as nothing more than victims of their own poor life choices. "The battle against the deficit" they've framed as a growth strategy, which it isn't, rather than an ideologically driven attempt to shrink the State, which it is.

The state being enlarged was also ideologically driven.

Yes.

But Attlee didn't hide the fact, he celebrated it, his political opponant Winston Churchill, railed against it, but the public were not kept in the dark as to Attlee's motives and when Churchill got back in the early 50's he did little to reverse it, the welfare state was a fact.

What Cameron is doing now is shrinking the State, while pretending to do something else.

 

[Damocles]

The state being enlarged was also ideologically driven.

You'd have to be more specific but let's presume it true for a minute.

The state was being enlarged to ensure that people who needed the resources the most in our society were able to access them as an ideological move.

Why is this a bad thing? Isn't the entire point of an ideological move to help people? The cutting of the benefits for the reasoning of "getting scroungers into work" is not only attempting a form of social control but also has the problem of hurting people who aren't scroungers.

When did helping people who need help the most at the cost of a small tax increase for those who can afford it the most suddenly become a bad idea? When did a "sink or swim" approach to looking after people, especially those in poverty and from poor backgrounds, become a sensible idea?

My issue with the ideology of the "cut the benefits!" lot is that they understand that they are potentially hurting people and they don't care because it might save them a penny in tax. That is a standard of callousness that even a logical guy like me cannot manage to produce. People are literally dying from welfare cuts if the reports are to be believed and we have people reliant on food banks in one of the richest countries in the world and they are interested in tax savings.

Again, this idea that we have no money is wrong. If cuts were desperately needed then scrap the replacement of nuclear weapons. Scrap HS2 and other schemes of its kind until we are back on track financially. Freeze the defence budget. These 3 actions alone would save MORE than £12bn.

Why can we not do those cuts first before making the cuts that will actually affect the day to day lives of the least fortunate amongst us?

It's misplaced jealousy and a sense of righteousness about how your income determines your worth that drives this. The financial arguments are after the fact rationalizations to disguise the argument in a cloak of legitimacy.

 

[SWP's back]

What is managed average spending and how does it compare with "real spending"?

The Government's preferred measure is Total Managed Expenditure (TME) [real], which describes all forms of expenditure made by central government, local authorities and public enterprises. This includes in particular spending on social services and benefits, health provision, transport, education, defence, debt interest, housing, judicial and protective services and employment.

In terms of budget planning and control, TME is the sum of Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) and Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) set by the Treasury.

Departmental Expenditure Limits are the budgets set for Departments of State and the Non Departmental Public Bodies and local authorities they are responsible for in the course of three-yearly Spending Reviews. They include provision for all firm spending plans for the Department, running and procurement costs, subsidies and grants paid to the private sector, capital depreciation and receipts, and reserves.

The Annual Managed Expenditure comprises Departmental spending programmes that cannot be reasonably restricted to three-year cycles (notably social security and public sector pension spending, tax credits, Common Agricultural Policy payments etc), "Locally Financed Expenditure" (council spending funded by council tax and other local sources), net payments to the European Union, and central government debt interest.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/public-spending" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/public-spending</a>

 

[SWP's back]

You have to admire the Tories, they've framed the debate on cuts as a battle against "welfare as a lifestyle", and re-defined the poor as nothing more than victims of their own poor life choices. "The battle against the deficit" they've framed as a growth strategy, which it isn't, rather than an ideologically driven attempt to shrink the State, which it is.

The state being enlarged was also ideologically driven.

Yes.

But Attlee didn't hide the fact, he celebrated it, his political opponant Winston Churchill, railed against it, but the public were not kept in the dark as to Attlee's motives and when Churchill got back in the early 50's he did little to reverse it, the welfare state was a fact.

What Cameron is doing now is shrinking the State, while pretending to do something else.

It does look like that yet although as shown above, spending is still up (as a % of GDP from where it was both ten and fifteen years ago with Blair).

 

[SWP's back]

The state being enlarged was also ideologically driven.

You'd have to be more specific but let's presume it true for a minute.

The state was being enlarged to ensure that people who needed the resources the most in our society were able to access them as an ideological move.

Why is this a bad thing? Isn't the entire point of an ideological move to help people? The cutting of the benefits for the reasoning of "getting scroungers into work" is not only attempting a form of social control but also has the problem of hurting people who aren't scroungers.

When did helping people who need help the most at the cost of a small tax increase for those who can afford it the most suddenly become a bad idea? When did a "sink or swim" approach to looking after people, especially those in poverty and from poor backgrounds, become a sensible idea?

My issue with the ideology of the "cut the benefits!" lot is that they understand that they are potentially hurting people and they don't care because it might save them a penny in tax. That is a standard of callousness that even a logical guy like me cannot manage to produce. People are literally dying from welfare cuts if the reports are to be believed and we have people reliant on food banks in one of the richest countries in the world and they are interested in tax savings.

Again, this idea that we have no money is wrong. If cuts were desperately needed then scrap the replacement of nuclear weapons. Scrap HS2 and other schemes of its kind until we are back on track financially. Freeze the defence budget. These 3 actions alone would save MORE than £12bn.

Why can we not do those cuts first before making the cuts that will actually affect the day to day lives of the least fortunate amongst us?

It's misplaced jealousy and a sense of righteousness about how your income determines your worth that drives this. The financial arguments are after the fact rationalizations to disguise the argument in a cloak of legitimacy.

I'm not going to get into every point but Cameron would state that policies such as ending the situation where thousands go straight from leaving school and into a benefits way of life with 3m new apprenticeships can both help the nation long term and cut welfare.

It's treating the disease, not the symptoms alone.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There's a decent argument that can be made which states a 1.7% (£12bn) reduction in Managed Government Spending is hardly taking the piss as the increases in the past have been ideologically driven anyway and even with the proposed cuts we will still be spending a higher proportion (as a percentage of GDP) than we did during Blairs last term in office.

It's not as if all spending is looking to be cut.

But is there a decent argument? In the last year of the Major government, spending was at 40% of GDP. In 2007/8, when spending was supposedly "out of control", it was 41%. Now there's a good argument about whether it should have been as high as that in a period of rising growth, having been reduced significantly in Blair's first term.

Clearly we had to spend more in the period 2008-10 to counter the effect of a severe recession but what are we spending on now? Osborne cut too much too quickly and that impacted growth and productivity. In the fiscal year 2013/14 we borrowed a net £84bn, and total borrowing is forecast (in your middle graph) to be at the highest ever absolute level.

As part of that spending, we spend approximately £2 on health, education and defence (£400bn) for every £1 we spend on social welfare (£200bn). If we were to get rid of Trident, that would save a total eventual outlay of something like £100bn for a weapon system we'll either never use or, if we do, the budget deficit will be the least of our worries. But we won't.

Of the social welfare payments, Pensions make up nearly 40% and they're protected so we're looking at cutting £12bn off the remaining £120bn, which is 10%. That is not going to be quite so easy or painless.