Public sector net debt is 62% of gdp £820bl...OUCH

[Black Swan]

Ah! ça ira

Mean, I'm just not so sure on the widespread accepted wisdom and theory that benefits and the welfare bill will be slashed post election. The sociologists, anthropologists and apologists at the beating heart of the UK political establishment/government who busily direct policy, know that the various benefits have kept a huge swathe of under-employed folk relatively sedated and (arguably) law abiding.

There is no doubt that the huge boom in wealth (false?) created during Nu lab's tenure missed out the lower strats of society, but *it* was kept in check due to; working tax credits, 10% tax rates, ability to work 16hrs and still claim, buy council house etc...Crime figures have been static due to this.

If you initiate swingeing benefit cuts this section of society will, **put the Diamond White can down, turn off the Jeremy Kyle show, climb off the 2 seater cream leather settee (bought on the never never at 200% interest rate from Crazy George), switch off the 40" plasma and torch a car in the road**..any govt. will avoid this at all cost. Memories of the poll tax riots and the Greece riots will be in focus.

Although the UK's debt slave/status anxiety culture has created a pool of folk too scared to revolt, for fear that house prices will go down, loss of status or loss of income, it's those with little to lose that will risk more if you remove their subsistence safety net...

As someone who is becoming increasingly (and selfishly) fearful re. the immediate future of my 14 and 16 year old kids' quite frankly anarchy looks like a career choice. Particularly after last night listening to a depressing meeting at a school in which we were told; there are no graduate jobs in Cheshire/Merseyside, UNI fees will probably double by the time these kids go off to UNI in 2011/12, and they need 3As or A* and a brilliant personal statement to have any hope...

**generalistic description highlighting the stereotypical view many have of the unemployed/under-employed. Description made for forum amusement only.**


Perhaps a purge, an explosion of emotion is what's needed to correct so much imbalance..

Ah! ça ira

Ah! It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
aristocrats to the lamp-post
It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
the aristocrats, we'll hang them!
If we don't hang them
We'll break them
If we don't break them
We'll burn them

It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
aristocrats to the lamp-post
It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
the aristocrats, we'll hang them!
We have no more nobles nor priests
Ah! It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
Equality will reign everywhere
The Austrian slave shall follow him
It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
And their infernal clique
Shall go to hell
It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
aristocrats to the lamp-post
It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
the aristocrats, we'll hang them!
And when we'll have hung them all
We'll stuff a spade up their ar5e



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah!_ça_ira

 

[meanreversion]

Just finished watching "28 Weeks Later" ... now I'm truly petrified.

In fact, who knows what will happen post-election. Let's hope it's not as bad as the rage virus.

 

[gooseman]

when it comes to mandelson and brown i think i already have it.

 

[maiden22]

Re: Public Sector Pensions, was: Re: Public sector net debt is 62% of gdp £820bl...OU

People go on about the cost of public sector pensions, so I thought I would try to find out what proportion of the budget/budget defict they are.

Well, they certainly don't come cheap, but as a proportion, perhaps not as much as the critics might have us believe.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/public_service_pensions.aspx

More generally:

public service pensioners will have paid contributions to their pension scheme all their working life

They will also have paid income tax and NIC throughout their working life.

They will have paid any indirect taxes such as VAT, and also Council Tax.

While drawing their pension, they will continue to pay income tax (if their pension is high enough), although not necessarily NIC (unless they have taken another job) and any indirect taxes.

So while it is popular to cast public service pensioners as "a burden on the taxpayer", they too were and are taxpayers and have paid their share of the burden.

Who I wonder have contributed most to Britain's massive budget deficit?

Relatively modestly-paid public servants on relatively modest pensions?

Or overpaid bankers who caused a crisis and needed massive bailouts?
(and who have very nice pensions thank you very kindly oh don't mention it).

Hi MM,

I hope that you didn't take my post as being a pop at you or public sector workers in general - it certainly wasn't meant to be.

I agree that the current cost is not a huge thing in the grand scheme of things, although unless there is some extraordinary reversal this is going to get worse at an accelerating rate.

All the things that you have written about public sector workers are of course true of private sector workers. However, these do not get the benefit of a guaranteed, indexed pension with spouse's provision.

And I can't agree that they have "paid their share of the burden". The other taxes that you mention go to pay for other things (ok, it's all one pot, but you know what I mean, in theory). The value of the pensions available will almost certainly far outstrip the value of the member contributions.

I do see the system as being very unfair.

But it doesn't matter in the end - provision for old age needs a radical shake up across the board, or we are f*****, to put it as politely as possible.

 

[Black Swan]

Be afraid, very afraid

Take a look at the graph illustrating the difference between what needs to be cut in order to balance the books and what's been suggested...fook...!! What needs to be cut (that no party has admitted to) is the grey part of the bar..:-0



A dishonest debate about cuts


Peter Mandelson snapped at journalists at Labour’s press conference this morning, after he was repeatedly pressed to spell out where Labour will make its spending cuts.

Referring to a report in the Financial Times yesterday about the huge spending cuts that are planned after the election, Adam Boulton asked Lord Mandelson which areas Labour is planning to axe.

Lord Mandelson lost his patience, practically accusing him of bias: “Neither the IFS or the Financial Times are standing in this election… Adam you’re not standing for election either.”

It was left to Andrew Neil to point out that Lord Mandelson wasn’t actually standing for election either.

But while Lord Mandelson was stonewalling, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) released a stack of excellent briefings showing the differences between the parties cuts plans – and, more revealingly, the much bigger similarities between them.

Although you would never guess it from Lord Mandelson’s blood-curdling rhetoric about the wicked Tories’ secret plans to eat your babies, all the parties are committed to pretty similar cuts really. The Conservatives plan goes a little bit further and would happen more quickly. As a result they would end up borrowing about 6 percent less than Labour.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100036670/a-dishonest-debate-about-cuts/

 

[meanreversion]

They're treating the public like idiots, but then that's par for the course.

Mandelson accused Bob Diamond of being the "unacceptable face of banking" a few weeks ago. Well I think we know who the unacceptable face of politics is. By the way, did you see the mac that Mandelson was wearing outside no. 10 the other day.. he looked like a dirty old flasher.

Cameron to end up with a 10 seat overall majority I reckon.