Comments on: What I’ve been up to, week ending 2010-07-25

By: Newmania

Newmania — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:53:18 +0000

…On interest rates , oh for fuck`s sake so now you think that markets are always right and not subject to sudden correction. Doh ..

By: Newmania

Newmania — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:51:05 +0000

1 – Is any serious person suggesting this ? According to the IFS taxation in this country is already beyond the curve at which it starts to lose revenue at the top end and further tax rises have to come from the broad middle . This goes down to surprisingly low levels and truth of it is shown by the fact that when confronted with the real problem all Parties reached for VAT a regressive tax
Tax is about say 35% of GDP paying the increase in national debt , we need a nominal increase in GDP of approx 85bn .We need approx 5% growth just for that

Conclusion: You and your Nazi mates do talk some arse John You are suggesting this fantasy only to make your socialist cobblers appear moderate
2 That’s what we are doing , there is little option sadly as New Labour raised taxes that would have to be paid long after they were gone. it’s a question n of how much of each though
3 Cuts will not effect until next year and anyway this is a inch by inch battle not a switch to flick…

Clearly ideology is present in any decision but you have hugely misrepresented any administrations freedom to manoeuvre. The ideology does not come into the decision about what is required it effects the ability to deliver it .

By: Falco

Falco — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:39:20 +0000

I get the point but I’m far from sure. One of the reasons that the government is not “having any trouble at all borrowing money at favourable rates to fund the deficit.” is because they are clearly dealing with it, (or appearing to do so), and doing so fast enough to convince the markets that they are a good risk.

It is quite possible that only the fact that they are not taking the path of “cuts later” that gives them good enough credit to take that path at all.

Might well be nonsense but it has a certain entertaining symmetry.

By: John B

John B — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:39:53 +0000

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with anything you say above [too complex for blog comments at this time of night] – but Younge’s piece was arguing against the Tory spin that the current cuts are *necessary* rather than *a choice which may or may not be the right one, primarily dependent on your ideological beliefs about the role and size of the state*. They are the latter; that is simply true.

By: Falco

Falco — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:08:10 +0000

There are, I fully admit, decent arguments for going for option 2 although I would in any case tend to go for 3 on the basis that the government does far too many things that it has no business doing at all. Therefore you can make some cuts, (real ones, as in getting rid of some civil servants and specific services), and help reduce the deficit at the same time.

However, the big bad bastard to refute argument in favour of 3 is that in reality, if you go for 2 you will at best end up with 1. I think it was on one of the tube projects where someone pointed out that yes they could do X and it would only add 0.25% to the budget but that the problem was that everything was only 0.25 of the budget. If you are not willing to cut in a way that is both deep and structural then you will end up with no cuts at all.

As to the above I was merely pointing out that “Irrespective of your ideology” and “cuts born of ideology” don’t go together very well.

By: John B

John B — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:07:21 +0000

Eh? There has been a recession. The government has a deficit, but not one severe enough that it’s having any trouble at all borrowing money at favourable rates to fund the deficit.

The decision whether to:

1) deal with the deficit through short-term borrowing and longer-term tax rises, increasing the state’s share of taxation to match its current share of spending;

2) deal with the deficit through short-term borrowing, limited medium-term spending cuts, and long-term growing state spending slower than GDP growth, compromising between current levels of taxation and spending;

or:

3) deal with the deficit through immediate, major cuts in state spending

…is completely ideological. You might well believe that 3 is right; I certainly believe that the people who support 1 are wrong; but the coalition’s claim that the economic situation *only* leaves them option 3, and that the tax cuts aren’t a reflection of their ideological beliefs about the level and nature of services the state should provide, is nonsense.

By: Falco

Falco — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:16:39 +0000

“Great piece from Gary Younge on #torycuts. Irrespective of your ideology, it’s simply correct”

“The left must show this for the elective surgery it is: cuts born of ideology, where the many pay for a crisis created by the rich”

= Fail.

Can’t be arsed to do any more than that over the net. By the by, get in touch or I’ll call down the curse of the Spanky Lesbian Pixie Wenches upon you.