Osborne is showing his intention at last

The NHS budget encompasses Elderly Care, Social Services and Children's Services
No, loopylou, your MP is living in a different universe. These are all under the control of local government and therefore could all be subject to as much as 40% cuts which is frightenting.

Quote from an exRepublican Mike Lofgren, who distanced himself from his party when he understood the results of their policies. The sentiments can be exactly applied to Britain.
"The rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well-being except as a place to extract money. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it , but not of it"
We have a ruling class whose wealth lies off shore, and who identify more readily with the wealthy of other nations rather than people of their own.
On behalf of this elite, the government now gives away £93bn in corporate welfare: a sum bigger than the deficit. It champions TTIP, a grave threat to this nation.
Cameron warned "There is a grave danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life without having anything to do with people of other ----backgrounds."
Indeed Mr. Cameron.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11547808/Revealed-how-Tony-Blair-makes-his-millions.html

What a wonderful philanthropist he is.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/there-no-economic-reason-osborne-s-surplus-plan-it-s-time-labour-stopped-playing

The above is a link to a New Statesman article published in June this year, summarised below:

There is no economic reason for Osborne’s surplus plan. It’s time Labour stopped playing catch-up

George Osborne imposed the austerity policies in 2010 on the grounds that we must not go the way of Greece, even though many economists at the time argued that our economy is very different from that of Greece and other eurozone countries.

Now the Chancellor wants to by make it unlawful for the government to run budget deficits in normal times. Seventy-nine economists have already written a letter denouncing this, and both the Financial Times and the Economist have joined the criticism.

Economists generally believe that if you want to reduce government debt, it is generally best to plan to do this slowly. The costs of raising taxes or cutting spending today can easily exceed the future benefits that come from reducing debt.

Osborne bases his economic policies on misleading household analogies involving credit cards. We should pay off credit cards quickly because interest rates on credit-card debt are very high but interest rates on government debt are historically low. We need to borrow to improve the UK’s infrastructure but the government plans to spend less on public investment than at any time over the past 12 years. The Chancellor justifies this policy primarily on the need to reduce the burden on future generations - but the young are the ones who have, and who will continue to, suffer the most.

Mark Carney, has said, going for surplus will be a big drag on growth and many economists believe it increases the chances of a downturn in the next few years.

There is a another explanation for why Osborne is so keen to get to a budget surplus quickly. It is a great excuse for reducing the size of the state (which has always been their stated goal).

It is time for Labour to change the strategy to something completely different – to start telling the truth. To say that managing the government’s finances is different from running a household budget and that the deficit fetishism of the past five years has damaged the economy. Only that way can it avoid being tagged in five years’ time as the party that is always fiscally irresponsible.

And Margaret Thatcher made a fortune by pushing cigarette sales to third world countries. We could go round in circles if we keep looking outside of the current political picture. This is about here and now and what's likely to happen to our country. [I'd assume Blair is using the offshore tax account things that Camerons father helped set up ].

Perhaps in politics it just boils down to "the lesser of 2 evils"?

Just be thankful that Ukip didn't get power!

whitewave Tue 21-Jul-15 21:28:03

If Labour had won the election Britain would literally be bankrupt.

Q. What is Osborne trying to achieve?

A. Obviously the reduction of the massive financial debt/government borrowing in the
UK. We are not alone in having debt but the UK is one of the worst countries in the
world for the amount we owe.

Q. Why is he trying to achieve this?

A. A country must prove that it can run it's finances soundly. If not it has to eventually
pay for it's financial mishandling. Both Labour and The Conservative parties voted
for spending cuts in this Parliament.

Q. How is it going to be achieved?

A. A government has the same restraints as any person/organisation who is highlly
in debt. He/She/It has to downsize, reduce it's expenditure and look to see if
money is being wisely spent.

Q. Who will be affected.

A. All of us. There are two lines of thought aren't there. To some they are looking
for a government to return the UK's finances to a sustainable level that means the
UK will be able to continue to pay for public services , the NHS, education. For
others they believe you have to spend more, tax more to maintain public services
the NHS, education etc.

Q. Are we clear what the end result will be?

To some it will be the UK returns to living within it's means, to others it will be
going to hell in a handcart!

Q. Is there an alternative?

A. Yes, returning to the government spending more and more money it doesn't have
keeping the UK in jeopardy of loosing it's credit rating , returning to being called
the 'basket case of Europe' and eventually money dries up and the poorest in
society will suffer the austerity known so well by some of our parents, in fact
even some GN'ers can recall.

There is obviously a different take on finances dependant on your line of thought. It has been mentioned to a poster something like she has 'swallowed the mantra of the right', to others they could accuse some of 'swallowing the mantra of the left'.

As for the 'categorical statement' there will be 40% cuts I take issue with that.

There has been a lot of discussion on this over the last 24 hours and most political commentators are stressing the 40% is being 'asked for' as a bargaining tool and has no chance of being put in place, in other words a known Treasury ploy.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies for example has estimated that unprotected departments would need to find around 13% of savings to meet the £20 billion 'target' being 'asked for'.

I just wish governments/councils of any colour would cut out 'waste' and maybe there could be more money for the services that have to take a knock because of poor financial management.

Looking at things from the bottom up is often a good way to start.

I have asked my local council why they have 3 different contractors cutting various areas of grass in a vicinity of 2 to 3 cul de sacs.

Does anyone on here really understand economics or do they just believe what their favourite party tells them? There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that either of the two main parties had the best, or the worst economic record whilst in government, depending where you look. Just because the Tories keep telling us the economy is safe with them, and Labour is the party of reckless spending, doesn't mean it's true.

Do governments show annual accounts the way that businesses have to? Not that I'd undertstand it if I saw it but some people would. A few years ago the last train manufacturer in this country nearly went down, taking the workforce and local businesses with it. What had happened was that it had lost a tender to [I think] the French for work that it was depending on. It was, thankfully, saved because the French factor in such things as job loss/creation into their quote whereas we didn't. Result was, after a lot of letter writing and marching in the streets, they got the contract and jobs, businesses and [very important this] their world renowned apprentice scheme is now flourishing. This must happen all over the country when it comes to tendering for jobs.

theconversation.com/explainer-why-doesnt-work-always-offer-a-safe-escape-route-from-poverty-44628

The government should have an idea of the potential effects of what they are doing.
They always have an enquiry into what the effects will be. It's just that when it does not suit them they ignore or hide the findings, like the report into the number of people who have died while having their benefits stopped.

There are plenty of groups which will and do tell them like the JRF, CPAG, Living Wage Foundation, etc.

Every council also has to do an impact assessment of their budgets. The OBR does an impact assessment of the government's budget.

Excellent post POGS, I am guessing it will be ignored by many.

That's not true roses. I'm sure that all of us will agree with POGS last paragraph 'I just wish governments/councils of any colour would cut out 'waste' and maybe there could be more money for the services that have to take a knock because of poor financial management'.

To those of you who think the Conservatives' plans are a great idea, why not answer the criticisms that the New Statesman, the Economist and many other experts have made of their proposals instead of just trotting out the Conservative Party's views?

In The I today are the headlines "40% - scale of cutbacks revealed - Chancellor tells ministers to find £20bn. new savings from public sector. More cuts on welfare signalled - on top of £12 bn. already under way." Included in the summary: "Where the axe falls - More state-funded services to be delivered by private firms; more user charges."

It will be interesting to see which services are to be hived off, which will now incur a direct cost to the user and how well that cost is monitored and controlled in future years.

magpie Where exactly did you get the evidence to support your statement that if Labour had won the election Britain would literally be bankrupt?

POGS, I quote :

Q. Who will be affected.

A. All of us.

Surely, no-one can go with Cameron's statement that 'we are all in this together'? Look at the figures of who will be affected the most? Will it truy affect bonuses in the City and those on largest salaries?

In answer to my questions relating to Osborn's plan to cut overall spending

It is clear when looking at the figures that balancing the books is not the only aim of GO over the next 5 years.
His aim to cut government spending to 36% down from 42% will be the biggest in the industrialised world and the lowest in the UK since 1948.
GO's plan is for a small state, reflecting the apotheosis of the neo-liberal view which has a blanket ideology of a distaste for all things to do with government.
During the previous government GO failed to boost productivity and wages, this together with the austerity imposed on the population ensured that he utterly failed in achieving his stated aim indeed the deficit more than doubled during the last government.
The result of this is to create real misery amongst the poorest in our community, and for the government to deny it flies i n the face of the evidence.

'...reflecting the apotheosis of the neo-liberal view which has a blanket ideology of a distaste for all things to do with government.'

Could we possibly have that in plain English, please?

Neo-liberal economics drawing on classical economics believes as far as possible the economy should be run by the individual/private economy. Thatcher and Regan tried this in the early 80',s but soon found to everyone's cost that it doesn't work in the type of globel economy that exists today.

Thank you, whitewave.

No problem

Clearly we must move towards balancing the books in some way. Most people agree with that.

How should it be done?...

By making sure that the biggest burden falls in those most able to bear it and not on those who are already disadvantaged.

The bankers who got us into this mess should be bearing the brunt of this and not those who have need of public services.

The same end can be achieved in a moral fashion and not by pursuing a political agenda that has lost sight of what public services are about, and does not wish to hear about it.

But how can bankers be made to bear the brunt? Squeeze them until the pips squeak? They wouldn't stay long enough for a fraction of the deficit to be cleared.

Not giving them million pound bonuses would be a start.