the dave'n'nick show

[Posts: 4763Joined: 07 Oct 2002, 11:50Location: Scotland]

Since the General Election we have been bombarded by talk of this new coalition politics. Now that the coalition have completed their spending review thing, I am a bit disappointed tbh.

I never thought I would see the Liberals sign up to 'Eat the Poor' politics.

dave's Big Society Idea seems to be a thinly disguised 'your on your own' statement to the wider population. The sort of thing that the old thatcherite gangsta Tories could only have dreamed of.

I'm particularly annoyed with nick, I thought he would have had more influence, instead of changing into a tory. It's like he woke up one morning completely changed his political views cos he's been kidded on into thinking he's getting a say.

.. anyone else have an opinion?

[Posts: 1835Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 19:43Location: north west]

The problem for the libdems now that they're in government is that they have to be realistic. It's easy to spout populist policies when you'll never have a chance to implement them, we can all promise what we know we'll never get a chance to deliver. Nick, Vince and co. are now out of that comfort zone and have to deal with the realities. That means becoming unpopular.
As for the spending review, I was quite impressed by Osborne (if not necessarily his policies). He seems less like the sixth-form sneak and more like someone with political nous and direction.
Alan Johnson is a likeable guy but seems like a fish out of water on economics. I'd have liked to have seen him be the new Labour leader - he comes across as "one of us" with regards to Labours' core vote, whereas as Ed (and David) Milliband both seem somewhat removed from the hairy-ar?ed mob that they seek to represent. (Ditto Harman, Blair, Brown, Mandelson, etc.)
Ed Milliband was next to useless at PMQ yesterday (not that that is solely what he should be judged on). He looked like some young buck off the Apprentice trying to impress an invisible Alan Sugar.
For the most realistic take on the coalitions spending policies I'd recommend reading John Redwoods' writings on it. (Would normally provide a link but can't today). He's droll and to the point and head-and-shoulders above the average waffling/spinning ar£eholes that serve as MPs for all 3 main parties. Trouble is, he looks the sort of guy who could be Draco Malfoy's god-father.
Can't help thinking though that the BBC have been trying a little too hard to find people who swear that this means the end-of-the-world for all decent poor people (the chap from Coventry in tears on the 6pm news springs to mind). Perhaps it's just me, but I get the impression many of the BBC's news crew are closet (or not so closet) New Labour fans; impartiality isn't their strongest point. (Did anyone read the story that the Director of BBC News had to send an e-mail to her staff telling them not to make anti-tory "tweets" in case they might be accused of bias?).

[Posts: 4763Joined: 07 Oct 2002, 11:50Location: Scotland]

I suppose it's only 490,000 jobs that are going insomniac, damn those reds at the bbc for pointing it out.

[Posts: 6690Joined: 25 Feb 2001, 19:39Location: Surrey]

damn those reds at the bbc for pointing it out.

Overpaid, "reds" at that.

Regards

[Posts: 1571Joined: 04 Mar 2010, 10:15Location: Huddersfield]

I suppose it's only 490,000 jobs that are going insomniac, damn those reds at the bbc for pointing it out.

How people can not see the long term benefits is beyond me.

[Posts: 4763Joined: 07 Oct 2002, 11:50Location: Scotland]

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/06/04/nick-clegg-to-play-with-tiny-steering-wheel-during-prime-minister%E2%80%99s-questions/

.. I quite like this one of the terrible twosome.

LOL!

[Posts: 4763Joined: 07 Oct 2002, 11:50Location: Scotland]

So this week's madness from the twits is to kick all of the poor people out of the posher parts of London?

I don't know about anyone else but I don't see the coalition going on much longer. I honestly believe that a lot of Libs are decent people and unless they go all 1984, we'll be having another election soon.

Nick Clegg is starting to look like Blair did on the eve of his Holy War in Iraq, he's aged about 10yrs in the last month or so . the fanny lol!

[Posts: 4763Joined: 07 Oct 2002, 11:50Location: Scotland]

. so after running up and down the country pledging not to increase student fees they are now going up to 9k a year, at certain unni's.

[Posts: 10847Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

They may go 'Animal Farm' rather than '1984' Dave.

[Posts: 242Joined: 15 Mar 2008, 20:07Location: Bristol]

It's beyond me how anyone can justify the size of the public sector at present. Surely it's blindingly obvious that we need these cuts, otherwise our economy is just not sustainable.

An ever increasing public sector, supported by a dwindling private sector - it's never going to work. I feel sorry for those that are losing their jobs, but sorry, we just can't afford it.

The cuts weren't severe enough in my opinion. They only take the size of the state back to where it was in 2004, when it was still too big following seven years of Labour massaging the unemployment figures by giving people non-jobs in the public sector.

[Posts: 4763Joined: 07 Oct 2002, 11:50Location: Scotland]

.. I think the antics of the Liberals are indeed 1984 lol. I suppose it's a party that has completely u-turned on it's own policies and the people that voted for them. It will be interesting to see how the next by-election pans out with their opinion poll rating sitting at 9%.

Benny, I think a lot of people are confusing quantive easing with planned public spending. Its a bit of a worry that the Yanks are starting to pump more borrowed money into their economy again .. in a couple of months time we may be having to do the same thing. And then what are the twits going to do ?

[Posts: 242Joined: 15 Mar 2008, 20:07Location: Bristol]

Dave - quantitative easing is not borrowed money - it's money created by the central bank (essentially printing money). They use this newly created money to buy government bonds, which effectively places the new money in the hands of financial institutions.

The idea is that it gets more money circulating in the economy, stimulating demand.

Whether it actually works is unproven.

The potential pitfall is inflation - but because the effects are delayed, nobody knows if and when this will be a problem.

There are a couple of other side effects to QE. One is to weaken the currency (which can make your exports more competitive, but imports more expensive), and another is to inflate asset prices, for example pushing share prices up.

QE is an almost entirely separate issue to public spending and borrowing, which was the orignial subject of the thread (though as QE drives government bond yields down it can allow the government to borrow more cheaply).

As I said in my original post, the level of government spending is unsustainable and needs to be cut.

[Posts: 705Joined: 23 Oct 2002, 20:36Location: Herts]

Why can't we stop rich individuals (like George Osborne,) and corporations (like Vodafone,) avoiding paying billions in tax in the UK? (through fair means or foul,) the country would be in a much better financial state if they didn't.