Earlier in the thread you appeared to suggest that what the coalition is doing had the majority support of the 'popular vote' whereas here you're accepting what is being served up has no such implied mandate.

In May 2010 'the coalition' offered no manifesto, and didn't appear on any ballot paper.




Borrowing to spend is an effective technique for deficit reduction if it results in higher tax revenues and reduced expense on benefits. These improvements in the balance sheet will outweigh the extra repayments. It is particularly useful when interest rates are as low as they are at present. If the spending programmes are suitably chosen, they will help restore economic growth generally, multiplying the effect.

Gideon is now seeing the opposite effect: cuts in spending programmes reduce tax revenue and increase the need for benefits, so his efforts are likely to worsen the deficit rather than rebalance it. It’s an illiterate economic policy (as was the redrafted advice to concentrate on repaying credit cards in the run up to Christmas - I bet the retailers loved that one), which can only be seriously advocated by people who have an agenda to shrink the state and who don’t care who gets hurt in the process. Another example highlighted today - www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68225.html - as if a sizeable proportion of children's diets are safe in the hands of the processed food industry.



I don't agree because the stated aim to balance the economy by the end of this parliament is unrealistic without inflicting further damage and that burden disproportionately falling on women generally and those least able to make ends meet. I'm fairly sure my prediction for the UK economy from 12 months ago on here (one of flatlining growth) has thus far proved more accurate than that of the OECD, the IMF the BOE and the OBR. Strange that they couldn't see the storm clouds gathering over our major export market.

Earlier in the thread you appeared to suggest that what the coalition is doing had the majority support of the 'popular vote' whereas here you're accepting what is being served up has no such implied mandate.

In May 2010 'the coalition' offered no manifesto, and didn't appear on any ballot paper.




Borrowing to spend is an effective technique for deficit reduction if it results in higher tax revenues and reduced expense on benefits. These improvements in the balance sheet will outweigh the extra repayments. It is particularly useful when interest rates are as low as they are at present. If the spending programmes are suitably chosen, they will help restore economic growth generally, multiplying the effect.

Gideon is now seeing the opposite effect: cuts in spending programmes reduce tax revenue and increase the need for benefits, so his efforts are likely to worsen the deficit rather than rebalance it. It’s an illiterate economic policy (as was the redrafted advice to concentrate on repaying credit cards in the run up to Christmas - I bet the retailers loved that one), which can only be seriously advocated by people who have an agenda to shrink the state and who don’t care who gets hurt in the process. Another example highlighted today - www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68225.html - as if a sizeable proportion of children's diets are safe in the hands of the processed food industry.



I don't agree because the stated aim to balance the economy by the end of this parliament is unrealistic without inflicting further damage and that burden disproportionately falling on women generally and those least able to make ends meet. I'm fairly sure my prediction for the UK economy from 12 months ago on here (one of flatlining growth) has thus far proved more accurate than that of the OECD, the IMF the BOE and the OBR. Strange that they couldn't see the storm clouds gathering over our major export market.

Once again you are being obtuse. Please quote the law that states that the elected government has to adhere to its manifesto or cannot compromise parts of it’s Manifesto in a coalition as they think fit.

It is plain for most people (but not you) that by definition a Coalition cannot carry out individual manifestos but has to compromise to move forward. Before the last election there was much talk of a hung parliament after Clegg’s success in the TV debates. The public were well aware of the risks of this. Indeed many unenlightened folk wanted a change to PR in any case despite the problems experienced by some of our European neighbours.

The public had rejected Labour and made the Conservatives clear winners but without an overall majority. Our political system allows for a coalition and this government have a clear majority. It is to the credit of these two parties that they have made compromises and been firm on the key issues.



Yes this can work. However the IMF, CBI, money & stock markets, and the important credit rating agencies have made it clear they do not want the UK to do anything to reduce their deficit reduction plans. This risk of losing our AAA status and so increasing our borrowing costs is just too dangerous to contemplate.

I think the Government face very difficult decisions made much worse by the ongoing Euro problem and up coming EU recession. Good job we resisted the calls to join the Euro. Where were you on that one tvoc?



You cannot just create jobs where there is no demand. As regards shrinking the state, well I think this may have been in the manifesto! It certainly needed pruning as it had ballooned under Labour to something we simply couldn’t afford. But it got them some better employment figures and the intended extra votes in the process.

What you will see announced soon is a programme of capital expenditure funded by the private sector (pension funds etc) which could be good for employment.



It certainly was realistic and we were heading in the right direction until the problems of the Euro have been allowed to drag the EU into recession. The reason that much of “that burden” has fallen on women is that there has been a “disproportionate” amount of women employed in the public sector.

You flatter yourself, as usual, with your negative predictions.
Did you also predict the disaster of the Euro and it’s effect on the world economy?
Did you predict the disaster of the Tsunami in Japan and its effect on the world economy?
Did you predict the huge rise in fuel and commodity prices and the effect on the world economy?



We have had low growth so far this year as have the EU and the USA. By the way you give the worrying Balls salute when you say flatlining?

Once again you are being obtuse. Please quote the law that states that the elected government has to adhere to its manifesto or cannot compromise parts of it’s Manifesto in a coalition as they think fit.

It is plain for most people (but not you) that by definition a Coalition cannot carry out individual manifestos but has to compromise to move forward. Before the last election there was much talk of a hung parliament after Clegg’s success in the TV debates. The public were well aware of the risks of this. Indeed many unenlightened folk wanted a change to PR in any case despite the problems experienced by some of our European neighbours.

The public had rejected Labour and made the Conservatives clear winners but without an overall majority. Our political system allows for a coalition and this government have a clear majority. It is to the credit of these two parties that they have made compromises and been firm on the key issues.



Yes this can work. However the IMF, CBI, money & stock markets, and the important credit rating agencies have made it clear they do not want the UK to do anything to reduce their deficit reduction plans. This risk of losing our AAA status and so increasing our borrowing costs is just too dangerous to contemplate.

I think the Government face very difficult decisions made much worse by the ongoing Euro problem and up coming EU recession. Good job we resisted the calls to join the Euro. Where were you on that one tvoc?



You cannot just create jobs where there is no demand. As regards shrinking the state, well I think this may have been in the manifesto! It certainly needed pruning as it had ballooned under Labour to something we simply couldn’t afford. But it got them some better employment figures and the intended extra votes in the process.

What you will see announced soon is a programme of capital expenditure funded by the private sector (pension funds etc) which could be good for employment.



It certainly was realistic and we were heading in the right direction until the problems of the Euro have been allowed to drag the EU into recession. The reason that much of “that burden” has fallen on women is that there has been a “disproportionate” amount of women employed in the public sector.

You flatter yourself, as usual, with your negative predictions.
Did you also predict the disaster of the Euro and it’s effect on the world economy?
Did you predict the disaster of the Tsunami in Japan and its effect on the world economy?
Did you predict the huge rise in fuel and commodity prices and the effect on the world economy?



We have had low growth so far this year as have the EU and the USA. By the way you give the worrying Balls salute when you say flatlining?