Tory Conference OR "We are so going to screw you next year!"

[Markintime]

I read Escotrogen's post with interest, he advocates getting banks to part with their money but that is what lead to this whole global crisis in the first place. We have to make cuts in expenditure and they have to be severe enough to start to swing the economy back.
It always amuses me that people automatically assume that wages in the private sector are so much better than the public sector. In most cases they aren't better at all and the public sector pensions are the envy of the private sector and, in many cases, still include final salary schemes that have been almost wiped out in the private sector.
Forget the high rollers that Labour keep harking on about, they are out there but not in sufficient number to make a realistic difference even by taxing them out of existence. Take away the very top private sector earners, in the middle and below the wages between the two sectors aren't that different and at the very bottom public sector wages are usually more generous that the private sector with hardly any public sector workers on minimum wage.
The private sector has been cutting its cloth for a while now as firms struggle to cope with the recession, now it has fallen on the public sector. A pay freeze now is not a pay cut because we are in negative inflation so the salary you earn this year is automatically worth more than the same salary last year. The idea of pay awards is to keep your spending power at the same level year on year, it is not a reward or a promotion, if inflation is negative there is no need for a pay rise anyway.

 

[snozzer]

The private sector has been cutting its cloth for a while now as firms struggle to cope with the recession, now it has fallen on the public sector.

Hear HEar, about time they did their bit to help the economy

 

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

 

[Alsacien]

As a strategic move I believe the speech was solid, it appears the markets agree also.
The issue of servicing an ever increasing national debt has now overtaken the issue of recession. By that, in laymans speak, I mean at the current rate of economic recovery versus the rate of borrowing and interest does not produce lines that converge.....
The flip side is reducing stimulus by cutting pay, services and increased taxation will slow the economy down even more.
In my opinion he got it right with measures that are cautious (the brakes need to be applied slowly), and by pre-warning, the negative stimulus may be reduced.
There will have to be an income tax rise, but not until the economy and individual psycholology of the UK population can take it - in a year or two.

The comparable European countries handled this much better on a national level, but they have more debt averse populations and spending cultures.

 

[nigegilb]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

Well if he sits back and allows it to be ratified, Mandelson will have done his job. Nurse Gordon Brown along until the Treaty is ratified, transfer more powers to brussels in a stitch up super-state and to trump it all enthrone Blair as the new president of Europe and for sure he (Mandelson), is the only one smart enough to lead the Labour Party.

What effective power will Cameron be left with?

I'd go for the referendum and make a fight of it. There are few enough reasons for Labour voters to switch to Tory, or UKIP voters to come back to the fold. Does Cameron want a paper thin majority? Cos that is where he is heading.

I want the City of London to still be there in 10 years time, it generates 20% of UK GDP. France and Germany would sooner have the spoils to share amongst themselves. If that happens we'll be a basket case sooner than you know it.

 

[Alsacien]

For those with an interest in understanding short term macroeconomic projections (long term ones are just called guesses), this may help:

http://www.bundesbank.de/download/presse/publikationen/memmod_en.pdf
I believe the method was designed by Bank of Ireland.

Check page 179 if you are mathematically inclined and wish to model UK...

 

[Markintime]

As a strategic move I believe the speech was solid, it appears the markets agree also.
The issue of servicing an ever increasing national debt has now overtaken the issue of recession. By that, in laymans speak, I mean at the current rate of economic recovery versus the rate of borrowing and interest does not produce lines that converge.....
The flip side is reducing stimulus by cutting pay, services and increased taxation will slow the economy down even more.
In my opinion he got it right with measures that are cautious (the brakes need to be applied slowly), and by pre-warning, the negative stimulus may be reduced.
There will have to be an income tax rise, but not until the economy and individual psycholology of the UK population can take it - in a year or two.

The comparable European countries handled this much better on a national level, but they have more debt averse populations and spending cultures.

Excellent post. I think that there are many people in the UK who appreciate the enormity of the problem and that there are going to have to be some stern measures taken if the situation is going to improve. They might not revel in the austerity measures taken but they can, at least see that there is a road to recovery and that we, as a nation, are going down it. In times of trouble people turn to a strong leader and George Osborne is showing himself better able to face the harsh realities and lead. I have no faith in the nebulous utterings of Cameron, in my book he's trying to be another Blair but Osborne is willing to stand up, give us the bad news and then lead us out of the mire, at least I know what he stands for and can put some faith in his clearly stated policies.

 

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

Well if he sits back and allows it to be ratified, Mandelson will have done his job. Nurse Gordon Brown along until the Treaty is ratified, transfer more powers to brussels in a stitch up super-state and to trump it all enthrone Blair as the new president of Europe.

What effective power will Cameron be left with?

I'd go for the referendum and make a fight of it. There are few enough reasons for Labour voters to switch to Tory, or UKIP voters to come back to the fold. Does Cameron want a paper thin majority? Cos that is where he is heading.

Nige, the point is that Cameron can do nothing until he's elected and the timetable allows ratification before then, unless the Czechs do something spectacular. Stitch-up is the right expression but, even if he offered a referendum now, Cameron is likely to find that the caravan has moved on before he can actively do anything about it.

 

[jockass]

Bottom line is too much money is being spent that shouldnt have been spent in the first place by labour. The key to balancing the public books is going to be identifying what we can do without. And payrises for overpaid public servants seems like a good start.

If they dont like it they can leave and try their luck in the private sector. Double winner, they can then do something productive for the economy by generating income. If the job they leave really needs doing then it opens up a slot for somebody currently unemployed who IS prepared to work for that wage. Or if they were doing a non-job that we can do without then saves us all a packet. Happy days.

However the main thing is all these cries of 'how beastly' they are going to get the chisels and saws out should remember if Labour had kept the books more in balance in the first place. Either by employing less civil servants, or employing them on sensible money, then nobody would have to be feeling the pain now. It was all avoidable.

 

[nigegilb]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

Well if he sits back and allows it to be ratified, Mandelson will have done his job. Nurse Gordon Brown along until the Treaty is ratified, transfer more powers to brussels in a stitch up super-state and to trump it all enthrone Blair as the new president of Europe.

What effective power will Cameron be left with?

I'd go for the referendum and make a fight of it. There are few enough reasons for Labour voters to switch to Tory, or UKIP voters to come back to the fold. Does Cameron want a paper thin majority? Cos that is where he is heading.

Nige, the point is that Cameron can do nothing until he's elected and the timetable allows ratification before then, unless the Czechs do something spectacular. Stitch-up is the right expression but, even if he offered a referendum now, Cameron is likely to find that the caravan has moved on before he can actively do anything about it.

This is what Hague said the other day;

And even if the Treaty had been ratified when a Tory government took office, a referendum could still be possible. He said: "We haven't made the decision," he said. "I certainly haven't ruled that out."

The point being, if Cameron was brave enough to promise the referendum, the two remaining countries would have very good reason to stall their own process. Without the promise of a UK referendum it will be ratified by May. Cameron's policy appears to be to will that to happen.

There is no way Hague would hold a referendum in these circumstances, Tories are trying to con the electorate. UKIP vote will hold, rightly so.

 

[Markintime]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

Well if he sits back and allows it to be ratified, Mandelson will have done his job. Nurse Gordon Brown along until the Treaty is ratified, transfer more powers to brussels in a stitch up super-state and to trump it all enthrone Blair as the new president of Europe.

What effective power will Cameron be left with?

I'd go for the referendum and make a fight of it. There are few enough reasons for Labour voters to switch to Tory, or UKIP voters to come back to the fold. Does Cameron want a paper thin majority? Cos that is where he is heading.

Nige, the point is that Cameron can do nothing until he's elected and the timetable allows ratification before then, unless the Czechs do something spectacular. Stitch-up is the right expression but, even if he offered a referendum now, Cameron is likely to find that the caravan has moved on before he can actively do anything about it.

The trouble is timing. We are in the middle of a massive economic crisis and now is not the time to even be considering withdrawing from Europe and all the economic ramifications that would bring. Labour promised a referendum and then reneged on that promise, the Tories never made such a pledge so they are not breaking any promise and, in any case, by the time they got in power (assuming they do) the whole thing may be a done deal and there priorities focused on restoring the economy. A Government that I can trust to fight for every advantage that we can screw out of Europe will satisfy me rather than one who pulls us out with no clear idea of what to do next in the middle of the worst economic crisis we've ever had. I'm afraid we need to be pragmatic about these things until we can afford to be otherwise.

 

[Alsacien]

Only a complete fool would bring the EU questions to prominence right now - and Cameron is not a fool.
Time and a place.......when we are in the financial pickle we have right now there are no options open. Any change in EU relations would cause unpredictable economic fallout - the last thing the UK economy needs.

 

[nigegilb]

I am not advocating withdrawal from Europe, neither are the Tories, this is about the prevention of a once and for all transfer of power to Brussels. FFS they are building a palace for Blair and WMF, didn't matter what the Irish result was!

If you want to see an economic basket case take a look at Spain, single currency has hammered southern europe. We will be saved in the short term by a weak currency. We now require the politicians to start balancing the books. Your argument is simply a scare tactic, which worked very well in Ireland last week.....

Maybe I just can't bare the thought of Blair and WMF returning to our screens for four more years...

Cameron is just like Blair, a man who feeds off focus group fodder.

 

[Biped]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

Well if he sits back and allows it to be ratified, Mandelson will have done his job. Nurse Gordon Brown along until the Treaty is ratified, transfer more powers to brussels in a stitch up super-state and to trump it all enthrone Blair as the new president of Europe.

What effective power will Cameron be left with?

I'd go for the referendum and make a fight of it. There are few enough reasons for Labour voters to switch to Tory, or UKIP voters to come back to the fold. Does Cameron want a paper thin majority? Cos that is where he is heading.

Nige, the point is that Cameron can do nothing until he's elected and the timetable allows ratification before then, unless the Czechs do something spectacular. Stitch-up is the right expression but, even if he offered a referendum now, Cameron is likely to find that the caravan has moved on before he can actively do anything about it.

This is what Hague said the other day;

And even if the Treaty had been ratified when a Tory government took office, a referendum could still be possible. He said: "We haven't made the decision," he said. "I certainly haven't ruled that out."

The point being, if Cameron was brave enough to promise the referendum, the two remaining countries would have very good reason to stall their own process. Without the promise of a UK referendum it will be ratified by May. Cameron's policy appears to be to will that to happen.

There is no way Hague would hold a referendum in these circumstances, Tories are trying to con the electorate. UKIP vote will hold, rightly so.

The thing is, each change of government allows a country to put aside old sins, clear the decks, and change policy under a new mandate. If a new government comes into office, on a mandate given to them on the basis of electoral reform, or referendum on a particularly hot topic, then it is for them to do, and the issues of legality or not as far as the EU is concerned become moot.

The incoming government, on its new mandate can quite fairly say to the EU, look, we got this job because the people want to choose, and thus, as it is the will of the electorate, we must let them. If they decide they want to opt out, you must respect that decision because Britain is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and it runs on democratic principles.

 

[sebcoe]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

FF totally correct, Cameron has pointed out that if "President Blaier" exists when Tory's come to power, they will fight europe....to be honest that might just be the tipping point and proper revolution takes place...obviously not a bloody one but not implementing laws and paying cash into Europe

 

[nigegilb]

Cameron is making a HUGE mistake over the referendum.

No he isn't. If the wretched thing is in place by the time he gets into power it will be a whole new legal ball game, the rules of which are unclear at this point. Under those circumstances, any referendum may have to be about remaining in Europe, not simply about accepting the constitution. Offering a referendum on leaving Europe would be a major policy development and, very probably, highly divisive - something which won't have escaped Labour's strategists. Under the circumstances, Cameron is wise to avoid an open-ended commitment


Quotation edited for brevity

FF totally correct, Cameron has pointed out that if "President Blaier" exists when Tory's come to power, they will fight europe....to be honest that might just be the tipping point and proper revolution takes place...obviously not a bloody one but not implementing laws and paying cash into Europe

You have a lot more faith in Cameron and Hague than I do. The Tories brought in the Maastricht treaty, if you think anything will change under Cameron you will be disappointed. They are both fudgers!

I'd rather put my faith in the British people which is exactly why Cameron is afraid to do so.

 

[Alsacien]

Any signals of an changes in EU relations would cause unpredictable economic fallout - the last thing the UK economy needs, and potentially there really is a financial abyss.

If people cannot grasp that simple concept, maybe they can understand that only a fool wants to start negotiations from a position of weakness.

Now is not the time.

 

[nigegilb]

Oh right so the alternative is to break up the City of London, we'll be better off then won't we?

 

[Alsacien]

Oh right so the alternative is to break up the City of London, we'll be better off then won't we?

You talk nonsense.

 

[nigegilb]

Oh right so the alternative is to break up the City of London, we'll be better off then won't we?

You talk nonsense.

And I never thought anyone on these boards would be so afraid of democracy.

EU investment fund rules would finish the City of London
He knows, too, though he is too polite to say so, that the proposal is at least partly driven by envy: by the resentment in Paris and Frankfurt of London’s pre-eminence.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...t-fund-rules-would-finish-the-city-of-london/