Reply to: What is causing that 180 billion deficit?

[Tarquin Farquhar]

And just like all the scared stupid little liberals of the pre (and post) Thatcher years you have fallen for the oldest trick in the socialist book, which is to trap a country into a spiral of state dependence from which it cannot get out.

Braver people than you in eastern europe (and Thatcher) have taken on the socialist bullies who have thrived on cowards like you, and emerged albeit with lots of pain with stronger and freer economies.

You may think that we cannot afford to break away from this state controlled system, but like anything else it will perpetuate and accelerate into a downward spiral that will eventually kill off all wealth creation. We have no choice the spiral has to stop now- Unfortunately there is no one to stop it.

Stage 1: Absolutism, whether of kings, dictators, or communists.
Stage 2: Free-market jungle.
Stage 3: Civilised and caring human society.

I salute the courage of the Eastern Europeans in progressing rapidly from Stage 1 to Stage 2. But we've been there and we are trying for Stage 3. Taking a great leap backwards to full-blown Stage 2 is not self-evidently a good move.

[shaunbhoy]

Remember, real ones aren't like the ones in the films.

Yes, I'd rather have my taxes back than watch a couple of jabba-the-hutt lookalike carpetmunchers.

[Scary]

Om nom nom.

Can't we keep the Diversity Lesbians?

Remember, real ones aren't like the ones in the films.

[Troll]

ok, yeah, that department we'll keep!

...but only if we can watch

[hyperD]

ok, yeah, that department we'll keep!

[RichardCranium]

diversity lesbians

Om nom nom.

Can't we keep the Diversity Lesbians?

[hyperD]

It is a spiral, ...

It's a black hole and we're pretty much at its event horizon.

sasguru is right that an immediate culling of certain sectors of public sector that provide non-risk work for the private sector will impact our perceived well-being and feel good factor.

However, the situation we are in is that large amounts of non-productive parts of the public sector (QUANGOs, NHS target wonks, arsehole inspectors, diversity lesbians, 5.4 million benebastards etc) cannot be supported and maintained by the productive and wealth generating private sector and their stifling effect must be negated at once, otherwise much fiscal gnashing of teeth and wailing will ensue.

We should never have allowed the non-productive state to become such a political pawn to the socialists.

Anyway, we have no choice. Events are already set in motion because of Brown's total incompetence and the MSM's abundance of retarded, lazy journalists.

It will happen whether we bleat like whimpering Marxists or not.

[BoredBloke]

I'm not sure about that.

Our financial services expanded a lot in the 1980s, such that the City became one of the biggest players in the world, much to the envy of the rest of Europe.

Regarding manufacturing, it is true that it dropped as a proportion of GDP under Thatcher from 25% to 22.5%. But under Blair it dropped from 20% to 12%, a far more significant fall over about the same timescale (source the Grauniad).

Although she did oversee cuts in many money-losing industries, it's a myth that Thatcher destroyed the economic base. The Labour party seem to be making a much better fist of it.

Also remember that it's a proportion of GDP. As the finance sector boomed then even if manufacturing did not decline, its percentage of GDP would fall.

[DodgyAgent]

Is state dependence a bit like being a drug addict?

Or Victory Gin?

It is a spiral, the more people who are dependent upon the state the more it costs. as the state only consumes wealth and doesnt create it then the only way to fund the state is to take money from the private sector. Once the private sector is killed off then the state has to assume powers that force people to work.

[Doggy Styles]

And just like all the scared stupid little liberals of the pre (and post) Thatcher years you have fallen for the oldest trick in the socialist book, which is to trap a country into a spiral of state dependence from which it cannot get out.

Braver people than you in eastern europe (and Thatcher) have taken on the socialist bullies who have thrived on cowards like you, and emerged albeit with lots of pain with stronger and freer economies.

You may think that we cannot afford to break away from this state controlled system, but like anything else it will perpetuate and accelerate into a downward spiral that will eventually kill off all wealth creation. We have no choice the spiral has to stop now- Unfortunately there is no one to stop it.

Is state dependence a bit like being a drug addict?

Or Victory Gin?

[DodgyAgent]

All you economically illiterate dim-wits who slag off public sector jobs - have you stopped to consider the following:

1) There are not enough private sector jobs to go round in the UK since we destroyed our economic base in the 80s
2) The public sector use private sector goods and services, including IT contractors
3) A drastic cut in public sector jobs will destroy the consumption-led UK economy.

At least the public sector non-jobs force people to come into an office every day where they might be useful rather than paying them to sit at home which would otherwise be the case.

HTH

And just like all the scared stupid little liberals of the pre (and post) Thatcher years you have fallen for the oldest trick in the socialist book, which is to trap a country into a spiral of state dependence from which it cannot get out.

Braver people than you in eastern europe (and Thatcher) have taken on the socialist bullies who have thrived on cowards like you, and emerged albeit with lots of pain with stronger and freer economies.

You may think that we cannot afford to break away from this state controlled system, but like anything else it will perpetuate and accelerate into a downward spiral that will eventually kill off all wealth creation. We have no choice the spiral has to stop now- Unfortunately there is no one to stop it.

[RichardCranium]

Yeah, pay the f**kers 64 quid a week!

They are paying me £141.78 JSA every time two weeks when I sign on. But please do not ask me to explain why it is the amount it is because the whole "income based v contributions based" thing confused the hell out of me. And them.

Don't spend it all at once mate!

Apparently, because my wife is in full-time education I should have been getting the joint payment JSA of more like £100 per week but someone cocked up at their end and the DWP have been deducting about £30 per week because of a cock-up.

[Clippy]

Nothing to worry about, apparently.

[Churchill]

They are paying me £141.78 JSA every time two weeks when I sign on.

But please do not ask me to explain why it is the amount it is because the whole "income based v contributions based" thing confused the hell out of me. And them.

Don't spend it all at once mate!

Anyway, chin up sunshine, something will come along soon!

[RichardCranium]

What? JSA is £128 a fortnight, ain't it?

They are paying me £141.78 JSA every time two weeks when I sign on.

But please do not ask me to explain why it is the amount it is because the whole "income based v contributions based" thing confused the hell out of me. And them.

But I don't think that my £358.28 a year extra is going to make the £180,000,000,000 deficit too much worse.