The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

It's not entirely surprising that businessmen are objecting to increased taxes. Especially since several are also Tory donors. However, they do have a point.

The issue with using national insurance to raise taxes is that it penalises employment, which is not a good thing. The problem with the Tories arguing to rescind it comes with their answer to how they are then going to reduce the deficit. Both Labour and the Conservatives peddle this £11-odd billion of "efficiency savings" and Osborne seems to think that will, on its own, solve his debt problem. Of course, during 18 years of Conservative rule, and 13 years of Labour, no-one has ever achieved anything like those savings, and if Mrs Thatcher couldn't do it, why should anyone think David "Nice But Dim" Cameron will?

Find someone to promise that every public sector worker in the country, from Prime Minister to garbage collector will take an immediate 15% pay cut like in Ireland, and then you might see some real savings. Gorgeous George doesn't have the wit or the stomach for that kind of truth, any more than McBroon. If you're not going to raise tax, you have to cut expenditure. Why the main parties can't face the electorate with this simple truth is beyond me.

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

[al Roumi]

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste?

[Furunculus]

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?
Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste?

11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

[Beskar]

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off)

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

[InsaneApache]

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

I'll tell you a funny story that happened twenty years or more ago to illustrate a point. One morning the 'phone rang in the office and when I answered it was the rates officer. He informed me that we hadn't paid our rates and that if we didn't pay in full he would have no choice but to send the bailiffs in. Now bear in mind that both the rates officer and I worked for the same authority.

Anyway I send, "Go ahead matey boy, send the bailiffs in, you don't frighten me with your threats, you jumped up little Hirohito", and slamed the 'phone down, laughing my head off. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing!

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

[Beskar]

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.



No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

This works only with services, i.e. Rail, Water, etc. (as you pointed out). However, the massive number of as-yet unidentified leaky pipes, and the only recently replaced (last five years or so) rail carriages show that the public sector in Britiain not only failed to provide value for money, it failed to upgrade with time and technology. When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I('m afraid.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

[Beskar]

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

Thanks for reminding me. That is the sort of thing I meant with "That is not actually entirely true."

[InsaneApache]

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

I'll tell you a funny story that happened twenty years or more ago to illustrate a point. One morning the 'phone rang in the office and when I answered it was the rates officer. He informed me that we hadn't paid our rates and that if we didn't pay in full he would have no choice but to send the bailiffs in. Now bear in mind that both the rates officer and I worked for the same authority.

Anyway I send, "Go ahead matey boy, send the bailiffs in, you don't frighten me with your threats, you jumped up little Hirohito", and slamed the 'phone down, laughing my head off. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing! .

Just to illustrate a point.

In fact councils are so determined to get their money from other councils that they pursue their cases all the way to the Parking Adjudicator.

But the craziest, stupidest example has to be an appeal by Islington Council (Case number 2070232277) heard by the Traffic Appeals Service between June and September 2007.

In this case Islington Council had not only issued a parking ticket to itself, but then pursued itself at the Parking Adjudicator and then asked for costs against itself! (The craziness doesn’t end there because to ask for costs the council must believe that it acted wholly unreasonably or vexatiously against itself!)

The decision of Mr. Adjudicator Gerald Styles on 13th September 2007 clearly points out that the council cannot sue itself but the fact that he clearly did not collapse laughing and managed to dictate his decision is a tribute to his professionalism.

http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tic...s-release-001/

Now if anyone thinks this would happen in the private sector, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.....

[Beskar]

Now if anyone thinks this would happen in the private sector, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.....

Oh, they do it all the time. They are just not accountable for their actions, and the government ends up paying for it.

For example, that one where the banks kept asking themselves for a loan, and chased itself up on the loan and after years of finical neglect, cause a global-wide recession with governments all over the world having to bail them out.

[al Roumi]

11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

Well, maybe instead of disclaiming waste in public expenditure, you should be clear that it's any public expenditure, above a contextualy irrelevant figure that you are opposed to.

That kind of incoherence is pretty low for you mate.

[Furunculus]

Well, maybe instead of disclaiming waste in public expenditure, you should be clear that it's any public expenditure, above a contextualy irrelevant figure that you are opposed to.

That kind of incoherence is pretty low for you mate.

don't get your knickers in a twist, i already said i wasn't an extreme libertarian anarchist, and that i recognised a role for government.

[Myrddraal]

Is the conservative proposal to remove funding for teacher training for those with third class degrees or lower still in their manifesto?

For reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8464916.stm

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, it's official. The Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and the general election will be held on the 6th May.

[Banquo's Ghost]

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

[Furunculus]

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

absolutely agreed.

if you know that your party, if elected, will have to makes some deeply unpolular changes then the only to implement this is to go into an election seeking a mandate from the people to make those changes.

its is why i have so much sympathy with the mission of the excellent critical reaction blog when they say the following:
http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2502/...tical-reaction

At Critical Reaction we not only want David Cameron to campaign as a Conservative and be elected as a Conservative. We even hope he will govern as a Conservative.

I am not a floating voter, i don't need the tory brand to be 'decontaminated', therefore I am not a huge fan of this new image of cuddly-conservatism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

Tory spin.


1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.


2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.


3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

[Furunculus]

Tory spin.

1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.


2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.


3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

i will rarely ever do this because it consider it rude, but this truly deserves a Tribesman style reponse:



roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am reminded of the quote attributed to gordon brown in 97 on being informed by a civil servant that he was inheriting an economy in tip-top condition, he reportedly responded with; "do you want me to send them a f*£^%$& thank you letter?"

so, i am literally rolling on the floor, splitting my sides with laughter when you attribute the proseperity of the nineties and noughties to labour!

i doubt gourgeous george osborne will be given any such reassuring news to rude about!

thanks Louis, you brightened my day.

[Myrddraal]

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.

i will rarely ever do this because it consider it rude, but this truly deserves a Tribesman style reponse:



roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.



Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

I dissagree, as someone who works for a UK university and therefore is part-Public Sector. The Public Sector employs people for a host of reasons, the last of which is economics. One of the favourites is "we have money in the budget", another is, "to show we are still recruiting in a recession".

[Myrddraal]

I dissagree, as someone who works for a UK university and therefore is part-Public Sector. The Public Sector employs people for a host of reasons, the last of which is economics. One of the favourites is "we have money in the budget", another is, "to show we are still recruiting in a recession".

I'm not arguing that the reasoning behind government spending is economical considerations on the part of ministers. I'm saying that public sector spending is not a money sink into which money simply disappears. The important part of the post was:

Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

EDIT on an aside, I couldn't agree more. In my area we have problems with the roads (which area doesn't) but whilst the local govern't doesn't spend money on fixing the potholes, it instead uses the money to plant trees on the verges, and replace the pavement where it's in good condition, simply because these items fall under different budgets. Ridiculous.

[Furunculus]

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.

Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

before we start building armies of straw-men, let us be clear that i am not an extreme libertarian-anarchist as i accept that government has its place, however i consider it immoral for the state to spend more than 40% of the wealth generated by its citizens because taxation is basically legalised robbery and should thus be kept to a minimum as a matter of principle.

there is nothing dubious about the expectation of massive waste from a government that has increased public spending 250% in the space of only three terms, anyone who has worked in both the public sector and the private sector will have a bone-deep scepticism of the ability of any government to properly allocate and use such sums of money.

excuse me, what humility over which figures?

[Myrddraal]

I hear what you say about tax being kept as low as possible on principle. I agree as well, but there were some posts in this thread that seemed to be taking the attitude that public spending was a drain on the economy, that a penny paid in taxation 'disappeared' out of the economy, never to be seen again. This obviously isn't true. A penny spent is a penny earnt, etc.

Public spending does not make money disappear, the objective of public spending is to force expenditure into avenues which would not recieve funding under a free market system. Whether or not an example of public spending is desirable or not is a different matter, but to denounce public spending in general is a bit short sighted. Let's not forget that when Atkins gets contracted to build a stretch of road, that pays for the salaries and generates weath for private individuals.

excuse me, what humility over which figures?

I could almost see the virtual spittle fly as you denounced the skyrocketing public spending. Louis quite rightly pointed out that public spending increases as a function of both inflation and increasing GDP. You obviously weren't aware of the fairly small difference as a percentage of GDP (or you chose to ignore it), the least I expected was an acceptance of that, but instead you replied with what I consider to be quite the opposite of humility. It seems that Louis' ability to detect mutual respect outstrips mine.

[InsaneApache]

One of the problems with the public sector is mission creep and empire building. Things you just don't get in the private sector. For example see how many ministers and junior ministers we have today compared with the days of the empire. I can't remember the exact figure but it's something along the lines of 40% of the Labour benches are government ministers in some form or another.

Just to be clear. I don't think the public sector is bad per se and there are fellows in the public sector who do a good job. Unfortunatley the government see the private sector as a cash cow, used to increase the public sector. When you arrive at the situation where 52% of the workforce is employed in the public sector you are indeed staring into the abyss. Don't believe me? Take a look at Greece where something like 7 out of 10 of the workforce work for the government/local authorities. Look how well that ended up.

[Furunculus]

I could almost see the virtual spittle fly as you denounced the skyrocketing public spending. Louis quite rightly pointed out that public spending increases as a function of both inflation and increasing GDP. You obviously weren't aware of the fairly small difference as a percentage of GDP (or you chose to ignore it), the least I expected was an acceptance of that, but instead you replied with what I consider to be quite the opposite of humility. It seems that Louis' ability to detect mutual respect outstrips mine.

i know what louis said, and i am aware of its existance.

but this spending increase is not only a function of GDP growth and inflation, it is also impacted by both an increased proportion of spending as a function of GDP, and massively increased deficit borrowing, at a time when you should be using surplus to decrease the deficit in respect of the cyclical nature of economies........................

except brown had the towering arrogance to assume that he had engineered boom-and-bust out of the economy, so he could borrow and spend a much as he damned well pleased.

it was colossal incompetance.