Monday, September 20, 2010
Two (Important) Points re Lib Dem Conference
Had the party opted for a 'support and supply' approach, offering support on key policy areas only and keeping out of the executive itself, I think they could have retained real influence as to what Cameron wished to do as well as their independence and hope of a future. As it is they are engaged on a huge gamble-that the Tory savage cuts route will prove successful- which might well destroy the party if it fails to come off.
Second, I don't believe, as The Guardian suggests today, that there is no 'anger' among Liberal Democrat supporters. My friend Christine is one of the 1.5m voters who deserted Labour for a party which she thought was more radical and to the left of her former party. She is genuinely outraged that her vote helped to put into government the very party she has detested all her life. Maybe the problem is that delegates to the present conference represent the established Lib Dem party and not any of the 'converts' who supported them in May.
I'm not to sure where I will end up in the future, I do miss going to meetings, I suspect it depends who wins the leadership contest.
But being disabled it's more then likely I will just move on and leave the younger people to vote, I've had my day.
You left out "eyewatering & blood curdling"
Why oh why do you promote this tired old misguided grauniad theme ?
If this guvmint is indeed going to be spending less of taxpayers money, why
does this not filter through to the bottom line of expenditure ?
Guvmint cash spend is going UP this year,UP next year and UP every year thereafter to 2014-15.
Check with the Office for Budget Responsibility : the figures will be £696 billion in 2010-11 (up from £669 billion in 2009-10), then £699 billion, £711 billion, £722 billion and £737 billion.
Strange definition of Cut isn't it ?
If government spending is set to increase, how can the Labs & their fellow travellers chunter on about the dismantling of welfare provision and wholesale destruction of public services?
Recall the halcyon days of spring 2005
- Blair & Brown were still speaking,My Lord Prescott was still laying waste to the secretariat of the civil service -
& in Brown's election-winning budget of that year, the Lab guvmint promised to spend £519 billion, boasting of the triumphs all that lovely lolly would deliver.
In those days, debt interest was £26 billion a year, so there was a net spend of £493 billion. Was that an example of Mr Brown penny-pinching? He did not think so.
Now jump to Mr Osborne's June 2010 Budget and his spending forecast of £696 billion for 2010-11. Deduct £44 billion debt interest, and that leaves a net outlay of £652 billion.
Compare £652 billion in 2010 money with £493 billion in 2005 money. That is, adjust the former for five years of inflation. Which is bigger?
I stand to be corrected, but (give or take a billion) £652 billion today would have been worth about £561 billion in 2005.
See what I did there ?
For the economic illiterate, I'll spell it out. The Coalition is spending more now in real terms than Mr Brown, the darling of Labour's tax-and-waste brigade, did in an election year. Moreover, this spending is scheduled to INCREASE exponentially to 2015.
How is it that we managed to cope nicely then, but are now, according to grauniadistas,facing a public services apocalypse?
Answers on a postcard please.
Links to this post: