Be Excellent To Each Other

Surprised no-one's commented on this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8587877.stm



So much for Brown's 'Labour investment vs. Tory cuts election choice' mantra of a few weeks ago; looks like the unforunate reality of the situation has finally dawned on him? (Or more likely, someone has told him 'they won't lend us any more money, Gordon'). Alternatively, it could be another 'Forces of Hell' moment for Darling for letting the cat out of the bag again...

Dark days are ahead, regardless of who wins the election. The days of this phoney economy are seriously numbered.

Thatcher comes in for a great deal of flak from the Left for her cuts in public spending of the 80s, and yet Labour are planning yet deeper cuts, truly unprecedented in scale even by these standards? Could it be that, in actual fact, such cuts were then, as now, an absolute, involuntary, economic necessity in order to avert the bankrupcy of the nation in such circumstances, regardless of who's in government? If that's true, where does this leave the validity of this default criticism? Sure, one can question the detail and where such cuts have been made, but surely not the overall scale of the cuts themselves, in that case?

The credibility of Labour, as a political movement, is truly dire. (As an added 'bonus' we've even got mass strikes back now, just for that 'authentic 1978 feel', too).

I had thought the argument had, for some short while now, been not whether cuts were needed, but when they should be implemented, the dividing line between Labour and Tory being (according to their opponents) that the Tories want to do it too soon and will damage the recovery, and Labour want to do it too late and will risk our credit rating and VERY WAY OF LIFE in the meantime by bankrupting us.

Either way, this is genuinely going to be the most interesting election since 1997.

I agree chap, but as you say, 'for some short while' only. Up until pretty recently, Brown was still in la-la land, heavily insinuating that cuts wouldn't even be needed at all, seems to me.

To be fair this isn't my main point; I doubt anyone here will be too shocked at 'no more boom and bust' Brown's inconsistency in economic matters. No, it's the fact that Labour themselves are now openly planning vast cuts, greater even than Thatcher's in scale, that will doubtless have correspondingly greater social consequences - where will this leave the 'Evil Thatcher' naysayers then?

I've long thought he's a bit mentally touched. My wife worked in the Treasury for a bit, and she said she was quite shocked by how lacking in people skills he is - people would say "good morning" to him in the lift, and he'd act as if there was no one there, for instance. Also, you only have to listen to him talk about things to quickly realise he's actually not very clever.



Well indeed, but anyone saying "hahaha, you've had to do what you criticised Maggie for" isn't particularly helpful at this point. As we all know, times change, and whether cuts might not have been needed 12 months ago, they're needed now. Whether or not Maggie's cuts were necessary is a point for those masters of the retrospecto-scope, the economists, to argue over - I know little enough about it to say one way or the other.

What is for sure is that cuts are needed to rid us of the current defecit (whether or not there are also tax rises in certain areas), and it is down to (a) how much (b) where and (c) when.

I'm quite in favour of Canada's approach - a straight 10% off everything, and leave the departments to sort out the details. Ringfencing things just means other areas will be disproportionately hit, and is, more than anything, being used as a populist smokescreen by Cameron - "we're not nasty, we'll protect education and health!". And anyone who believes "efficiency savings" are possible is every bit as much in la-la land as Our Dear Leader.

I think that was the policy adopted by the Mcdonald government in 1931 too (except for the police, to keep them onside)

Hmm, I wasn't suggesting this observation is 'helpful', any more than any idle criticism from a powerless observer such as any of us here is, merely 'valid' in my opinion? The fact that Labour are orchestrating massive cuts, greater than those of their reviled and much criticised Thatcher in the 80s is of itself significant, both historically and from a purely fundamental, political philosophy POV.



I agree, but IIRC this wasn't what Brown was saying/implying until very recently, or at least giving any kind of inkling as to the vast scale of such cuts?



I agree to an extent, albeit Labour are saying precisely the same.



Totally disagree. The notion that efficiency savings cannot be realised in any organisation the size and scale of the NHS, regardless of how well run it is, is surely wrong? (Let alone some towering, top down beaurocracy like the NHS, a defacto 'nationalised industry' run along 1940s thinking lines? The failings of it as an organisation are at least part well documented in the media)

About to go on a conference call so will reply at length later, but on your final point, the National Audit Office agrees with me, so ner.

I'm not so sure the public spending cuts are the main reason people look back on Thatcher and think 'cunt'. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, saying "LABOUR ARE WORSE THAN THATCHER" is a bit of a straw man. Not that I'll be voting for the useless cunts, but hey.

I'm not sure if it was the NAO that made this point, but I read an article last week regarding efficiency savings, proving that even the demonstrably acheivable savings cannot be made in full.

Effectively, one of the claims is that they will cut NHS sickness by a third. This was proved by reference to the achievements of one health trust a couple of years back which changed the way their sick policy works to get staff back to work quicker, which has indeed cut sick days by that amount. Anyway, the plan is to roll their method out nationwide.

However, by claiming 1/3 reduction will result over the whole NHS is bad maths. That trust has already implemented that plan, so making it a national plan will not impact on their sickness. Secondly, this policy has been well publicised, and many other trusts have also moved onto that plan in advance, so they won't see any further benefits. Therefore, even if their initial experience was replicated precisely nationwide, the reduction in sick days cannot get up to 1/3, because of those which have already seen the saving. This of course is just one case.

Politicians, particularly Brown, haven't been shy of double-counting savings in the past, of course.

The NAO's point was that all of the "low hanging fruit" of efficiency savings have been plucked, and so there's not a massive amount of further savings to be easily extracted in that fashion. It's going to have to be a simple "less for less" approach now, oi reckons.

Yeah, you'd hope "efficiency savings" are being constantly made, not waiting for a budget deficit. If we can cut 10% off the budget at a single go without affecting the services provided, then someone's screwed up.

Also, I'd bet a huge proportion of Government spending is peoples salaries and pensions - making people redundant is politically and legally tricky, and reducing pension payouts might not even be legal at all.

I must admit, to my mind the cutting of public expenditure, subsidy, reliance on the State etc. are, ultimately, at the heart of people's objections in certain quarters, just as they are surely the root of high praises in others? (Still, it is a matter of opinion; I guess there are other factors in play as well, not all of them rational).

Notwithstanding, it seems pretty rich now for Labour to be talking about savage cuts that are to be 'deeper than Thatcher's were', given all the stick that they and those of their ilk have given her over the years and/or that there was some supposed option not to do so, don't you think? If that's true then, and there's some miracle panacia to hand, why not simply avoid these 'even worse' cuts now or in the very near future, by deploying it? (A: it doesn't exist of course)

Also, quite how they think the 'fragile recovery' is going to fare in the face of 25% governmental cuts is anyone's guess - the chickens of putting nothing aside/running the exchequer in deficit even in the very best years are coming home to roost, in stark contrast to sensibly run economies like Canada.

Why does everyone forget about the people who actually got us into this mess?

Labour voters. Cunts.

Oh, sure thing Plissken, I'm with you there (presumably, you are referring to the Bankers here). But politicians have a duty to legislate effectively for the adequate regulation of the City and the banks, rather than just letting them 'place bets' with virtual money, making vast apparent profits using virtual money, paying enormous bonuses using real money, and being bailed out with our money (albeit much of it of the printed 'quantitative easing' variety).

Again, Thatcher takes some stick for the Big Bang and partial deregulation of the City and to be sure there were some problems here (Lawson Boom of the late 80s), but all pale to utter insignificance to Blair/Brown's ludicrous beguilement and enslavement by the City from 2001 on (the utter dicks). This crass, catastrophic failing on their part can hardly be overlooked; you can't really blame someone for taking advantage of a failed system to make personal bonuses of many millions, year on year, if it's positively encouraged by the regulatory regime (such as it was) and everyone around him was cheerfully doing it. And anyway, since when has Labour understood a damn thing about the worlds of high finance and the City...? Thatcher is respected by the City, then as now, and with good reason. Brown by contrast, for all his self publicised 'financial prowess', is a laughing stock.

You've got to hand it to Blair though; he's got a damn good sense of timing and when the game's truly up.

Meh. Well you'd hope so old chap, but don't forget Labour's blatent, unashamed expansion of the public sector since their time in office, and all the attendant beaurocracy and inefficiencies that go with it.

I don't have the figures, but IIRC employment within the public sector has rocketed under Labour, despite the obvious benefits of technology and better working practices that should have kicked in between 1997 and now. I'm not actually surprised they're bullishly confident of obtaining a 10% straight efficiency saving in such cases, as they know this is deliverable better than anyone else.

I've 'heard' that he has Asperger's syndrome. I trust the source.

The only thing I'd like to hand to that narcissistic self absorbed legacy building cunt is life in prison.

If that's the case, then mad propz to the guy for doing as well as he's done. I probably still won't vote for him, though.

He does seem, more 'heroic' (wrong word, I know) to getting to the top suffering from that. He's obviously above average intelligence (he's got a PhD) but can't communicate all that well. The Aspergers would explain that, plus his alleged difficulty with stress management.

Still feel annoyed at him for not having a Labour leadership election, BTW. That felt like a two fingers gesture to party members like me.

Really...? Blimey.

Oh, I with you all the way. I just mention that he timed his belated departure rather well, making it look (to stupid people, i.e. voters) that the economic crash was entirely on Brown's watch.

'Doing as well as he's done' - destroying the UK economy, near collapse of the entire banking system, unprecedented public debt, decimation of UK manufacturing (vastly worse than under the Tories and unlike the former, involving good, profitable, non-Union infested industry, rather than just the unsavable late 70s dross), two disastrous foreign wars (still ongoing) and massive true unemployment?

I'd hate to see the result of his doing badly!