I really don’t know why tories claim to be fiscally competent and all for saving money. Even the most cursory glance at their behaviour reveals it to be otherwise.

It’s not spending taxpayers’ money on museums I object to, Sunny. It’s spending it on servicing our massive national debt. £43 billion last year according to the ONS, the same as the defence budget. The Coalition is proposing to peg back public spending to above the level it was at in 08-09 so there’s no reason to think museums like the excellent Museum of London will cease to exist at the end of this Parliament.

I’m not in favour of faster, deeper cuts. I think the Government have got the combination of cuts and tax rises about right, both politically and economically, and Labour’s historic loss in Scotland, its failure to win a majority in Wales and its inability to poll a higher share of the vote than the Conservatives in England two weeks ago suggests the public shares this view. (I don’t believe voters were taking out their anger about the cuts on the Lib Dems. If they were angry about the cuts, they would have punished the Tories.) I’m much more concerned about EU bail-outs. I don’t think the UK should run up even more debts by helping other countries pay off theirs.

I don’t dispute that cuts are being made to public services and that savings will need to be made across the public sector, including taxpayer-subsidised museums. They’re just not as draconian as the Government’s political opponents claim. And, as we know, Labour would be making almost identical cuts if it had won the last election. At PMQs a few weeks ago, the PM said Labour would be cutting £7 for every £8 the Coalition is cutting, but the true figure is £11 for every £12. (IFS estimates that the Coalition’s cut to public services – not the same as public spending – will be 12% over the lifetime of this Parliament. Its analysis of the Darling plan is that Labour would have cut by 10.9% in the same period.)

No cuts at all is not a serious option and to pretend otherwise is politically and economically infantile. Had the Government not taken steps to reduce the deficit, the UK would have been plunged into a sovereign debt crisis and had to go cap-in-hand to the EU for a bail-out. Under those circumstances, genuinely draconian cuts would have had to be imposed and institutions like the Museum of London would have struggled to survive.

@2, methinks you do protest too much.

Milton Friedman will be spinning in his grave!

It’s not spending taxpayers’ money on museums I object to, Sunny. It’s spending it on servicing our massive national debt

Hey Toby, it would be helpful if you knew:

1) Debt interest payments were higher in the mid 1990s as a percentage of GDP than now:
https://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/12/fact-our-debt-ratio-was-higher-tory-years-than-it-is-now/

2) What do you think our spending consists of, if not money on museums? If you were so against the govt spending more – why go to a free exhibition subsidised by taxpayers?

I’m not in favour of faster, deeper cuts.

Odd, your mates at the TPA weren’t saying that at the rally you were promoting.

And, as we know, Labour would be making almost identical cuts if it had won the last election.

The only people who say that are the people who don’t do their sums.

Even before the election, the difference was a massive £40bn in spending. Now the gap is wider since Ed Balls wants to go slower than Darling’s original plan.

Please do your sums.

@2

“It’s spending it on servicing our massive national debt. £43 billion last year according to the ONS, the same as the defence budget.”

[Emphasis added]

Anyone else thinking what I’m thinking… ?

“1) Debt interest payments were higher in the mid 1990s as a percentage of GDP than now:”

What were the interest rates in the mid 1990s? What would happen to out current debt interest payments if the rates rose to mid 1990s levels?

Toby Young

Had the Government not taken steps to reduce the deficit, the UK would have been plunged into a sovereign debt crisis and had to go cap-in-hand to the EU for a bail-out.

I hate this assumption that rightwingers airily think cutting spending is going to reduce the deficit.

It bloody well won’t.

Look around you – the strategy is already failing. The very element you need to close the deficit – GDP growth – has collapsed thanks to Osborne. The OBR has already had to re-forecast borrowing upwards, and that won’t be the final upward revision either.

Rightwingers really do live in fairy land.

2.

Toby,

I realise ‘education’ is possibly not your strong point – but let me have a stab.

I work in a bank.
The banks took the money (they took it in advance and then when the credit dreid up they claimed utter surprise which is why so many people have been ‘fooled’)
This is how the system works (or rather fails) and has done for over a century (economic history my dear)

So tell me, how do you get from banks robbing the money to your claim of “I don’t dispute that cuts are being made to public services and that savings will need to be made across the public sector”

You are a nodding dog – just like all the others who think like you. Do you ‘accept’ the loss of interest on your bank account when the local branch suffers an armed robbery? – no of course you don’t – and yet that’s what you expect the public to do with the latest skullduggery from the financial charlatans.

“No cuts at all is not a serious option and to pretend otherwise is politically and economically infantile”

Really? – well I retort that statement with.

“Anyone suggesting that the public should be made to pay for (yet another) crisis of captialism is a fool, not just a fool, but a dangerous fool”

See – it’s easy.

Clearly education didn’t work in your case or you would have read enough to know this already.
Nobody has EVER cut their way out of a deficit – and before you “parrot like” say ‘Canada’ – then you need to actually research the economic conditions of that recovery and the economic conditions of the world at the time before you accept that there is an exception to the rule I have just laid out.

…but don’t listen to me….I was just the noisy one who said…
“Don’t privatise the energy suppliers”
“Don’t privatise the railways”
“Don’t privatise the water supplier”

…and in each case those privatisations have cost the taxpayer less – but that cost has been born by the consumer.

Doesn’t anyone realise anymore that ‘taxpayer’ and ‘consumer’ are not mutally exclusive?

Typical liberals – living in bubbles and blowing bubbles…..

…and how was the ‘march’ on Saturday – sorry I couldn’t make it I was picking the black bits from between my toes. Good to see that you’re so well supported – maybe you could organise a petition – I have a spare sheet of A4 if you need it.

…oh and another thing – this country has had a deficit (and a debt) EVERY SINGLE YEAR YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE*. – and I don’t even need to know how old you are.
Why all the fuss about debt now? – it’s a scam, a total scam and you are either sucked in like a mug – or you are part of the scam.

*The ‘surplus’ pointed to in Tory years was not a true surplus as it came from the sale of fixed assets (British gas, Birtish Rail etc.) – the actual income and outgoings were still negative which is why the ‘surplus’ did not last more than a year. However this doesn’t stop ill-informed Tories claiming that they had a surplus once.

P.s. Toby

Have a look at this – will you be teaching pie charts in your free school?

http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MFTA-RAD.png

A good example of how pie charts sometimes are not suitable for all statistics.

BenM

“Rightwingers really do live in fairy land.”

Bubbles – right winger live in bubbles – their actions, their freedoms and their demands of small Government have no effect on anyone else within the bubble.

If we all live in bubbles then everything will be OK – I’m sure of it. Just like the freedom to take you child to any school in the city hasn’t drastically impacted the journey of most working people in the mornings thanks to “super moms” who drive space wagons so they can fit their 2.2 kids in and all their ‘consumer crap’ they must cart around with them at all times.

I must make this point as fairyland has had a lot of bad press lately – people think a lot of awfully right wing people live there and in fact it’s a very nice place.

6 – ross

Never mind the Government debt – if rates return to 1990′s levels (which they will – and worse – unless we go the ‘lost decade’ route and keep rates ultra-low for a decade) – then it’s mortgage holders you want to worry about!!!

You’re like the pastry chef on the titanic worrying about the puddings setting as the water floods in to the kitchen.

@ 5 Mr S Pill

“Anyone else thinking what I’m thinking… ?”

Mmm-hmm. I know this phrase is somewhat unfashionable these days, but in this case I have to say that “I agree with Nick”.

Everything about this hilariously piss-poor non-rally was excellent, not least that no-one will ever take Toby Young, Wank Staines, or the Tax Dodgers Alliance seriously ever again. The extent of the popular support for the latter in particularly has been very cruelly exposed, and the only appropriate response the next time any of these wretches claim to speak for anyone other than their very rich and stupid selves is to laugh in their hideous faces.

The extent of the popular support for the latter in particularly has been very cruelly exposed

I assume you equate popular support with numbers attending then?

It’s just that I tend to assume the sort of person who supports the Tax Payers Alliance generally is not the sort that protests, especially when the government is actually favourable to them…

Although if the TPA has anywhere near a tenth of the supporters of say UKUncut, I’d be surprised. And if the majority of the population did not vote for parties which followed the advice of TPA to some extent at the last election, rather that which UKUncut would presumably have produced (‘don’t cut’) I would be misremembering the fact all three main parties promised cuts…

Numbers protesting, support and influence are very different things.

What were the interest rates in the mid 1990s? What would happen to out current debt interest payments if the rates rose to mid 1990s levels?

Odd, if you’re going to take that ridiculous talking point, at least take it to its logical conclusion and admit that servicing debt isn’t as much of an issue now because interest rates are so low.

What matters is payments as % of debt. If that were so high you’d have a point. But its not. So you right-wingers are just scare-mongering.

The government interest bill is larger than X budget is trotted out every time a coalition representative appears on TV. One could be forgiven for believing that they have been programmed with this talking point. The nominal sum is irrelevant and so is the ‘ we are spending 120 million a day on interest ‘ that they are so fond of quoting. What is the interest bill in percentage terms of GDP, and what is it in percentage terms of the government total managed expenditure? Absolutely no one serious speaks about interest payments in nominal sums. For example, quoting the nominal budget takes no account that around 20% of the budget is paid to the BoE, who pay it back to the Treasury at the end of the financial year. Moreover, a majority of gilt coupon payments are taxed so again citing the nominal budget is misleading.When interest payments reach 10% is generally considered dangerous for debt dynamics not the current around 2.5%.

Who is Toby Young?

Toby Young “It’s not spending taxpayers’ money on museums I object to, Sunny”

Ahh Hahh…. in one opening sentence Toby moves the goalposts like the typical hypocritical tory that he is. He then rambles on and on about nothing of interest.

Shiver me timbers! that old Gentleman o’ Fortune turned privateer (@2), e’s missin’ Sunny’s key criticism, that exposes Toby Young as a hypocrite:

“All those who care about Britain’s future should attend the Rally Against Debt” – declared the fearless Toby Young on 13th May

Toby Young were not there, so ‘e don’t care about Britain’s future. E’s a son of a biscuit eater ‘e is, an’ needs a good, slow keelhauling.

Instead he’s takin’ up with the customs men enjoying their doubloons spent on grog for his ship’s boy!

Now I’ll be bettin’ that Lilly Livered Long Nigel Silver, and that Squiffy Blind Guido will be givin’ him the Black Spot for desertin’ when their ship, The Liberty, needed all fo’c'sle ‘ands on deck! With Toby as yer Coxswain, the crew won’t be gettin’ much on the account, but meetin’ Davey Jones at his locker instead…

aaaarrrhhh!

@19

You’re too early me hearty http://www.talklikeapirate.com/

Sunny, debt interest payments were only higher in the mid-90s because the cost of government borrowing was higher. National debt as a percentage of GDP, even at its peak, was lower than it is now. If the cost of government borrowing increased our national debt would quickly become unsustainable – and the risk of that happening had Labour won the last election and Ed Balls become Chancellor would have been high. Indeed, I expect Darling would have been kept in place and his plan followed precisely in order to avoid giving the gilt markets the jitters. If there was a snap election tomorrow and Labour won a majority it’s unlikely Balls would be made Chancellor for the same reason. Labour under Miliband has yet to come up with an alternative to the Darling plan and when it does – after the policy review, presumably – I doubt it will differ that much. The take-away from the regional and local elections is that Labour needs to be more than just a party of protest to stand a chance of winning the next election. Opposing the cuts will no longer be at the forefront of Labour’s agenda. Incidentally, the source for my claim that Darling would have cut 10.9% of spending on public services is here:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2010/10chap8.pdf

@Toby Young #21:

“…debt interest payments were only higher in the mid-90s because the cost of government borrowing was higher…”

Was it? What was the real (ie after inflation) interest rate paid by the UK Government on its debt in 1995, as compared with 2011?

@20 I be proposin’ that every discussion about the old sea dog and privateer Toby Young should always make reference to his interest in piracy, that we can remind him how he deserted his crew.

Yo ho ho

@! 21. Toby Young

One factor why the cost of government borrowing is currently lower than during 1980-90 period is because we now have an independent central bank rather than politicians manipulating things to suit the electoral cycle. I do not see what purpose it serves to quote the stock of outstanding gilts i.e. the national debt and on other occasions the interest payments budget. Small economies can run into trouble when debt approaches or exceeds 100% of GDP. Large economies can carry a much higher level of debt because their debt is more in demand as an asset class. However, what really matters is the average yield a country is paying to service their outstanding debt. There is nothing to suggest that the UK is or was in any dangerous territory. The average yield is just a manifestation of interest payments.

Obviously the UK fiscal deficit was unsustainable and had to be reduced.
However, that is quite different to scare-mongering about interest payments as if they are historically high when the opposite is the case. The 10-yr benchmark gilt real yield is currently less than 1%. The absurdity of borrowing at less than 1% and people demonstrating about it is pure hysteria. Moreover, to listen to government ministers the public could be forgiven for thinking interest payments disappear into a black hole. Transfer payments to pension funds and insurance companies takes up the majority.

Labour if they had won the last election would have had to take action to reduce the deficit. However, the skillful thing to do is to eliminate the deficit without crashing or depressing the economy. Growing the economy is the single best way to reduce the deficit. Regular downgrades of growth forecasts hardly speak of Coalition success.

What if gilt yields had spiked without a compelling reason why they would spike is deeply unconvincing. The eurozone periphery is a silly comparison because the circumstances could not be any more different to the UK. The gilts market is the inverse of the equity market and the wider economy. If growth is expected in the economy the stock market will rise and gilt prices will fall and their yield rise. Therefore, borrowing will be more expensive for the government. However, a growing economy means there is less reason for the government to borrow. So we actually want the cost of borrowing for the government to rise as that will show the economy is performing well. The effect of the inverse relationship can be seen every time the government have downgraded their growth forecasts over the last year. Gilt yields have declined as there is less reason to hold risk assets and as a consequence risk-free assets are more in demand. That is not a vote of confidence in the government, it is an acceptance of lower growth and that makes gilts attractive.

Interesting to see that Toby Young has just asked Mark J Cohen aka @toplitigator to comment on this post (an hour or so ago).

Troll (watchman),

“Although if the TPA has anywhere near a tenth of the supporters of say UKUncut, I’d be surprised. And if the majority of the population did not vote for parties which followed the advice of TPA to some extent at the last election, rather that which UKUncut would presumably have produced (‘don’t cut’) I would be misremembering the fact all three main parties promised cuts…”

Have you considered that MOST people did NOT VOTE – and therefore are not interested in this version of democracy and are in fact biding their time to make a real impact through REVOLUTION.

Put it this way – walk into the street (unless it’s Tunbridge Wells) and you can find 10, 15, 20 people in moments who will agree the cuts are being applied to the wrong people (i.e. the innocents)

Try gaining the same support for the cuts and see how far you get.

Fear is what keeps most people in line – so they will agree to ANYTHING if they think it’s an easy way out. The public who did vote ‘for the cuts’ are now realising what ‘cuts’ mean.

…or do you suppose it’s not within the general public’s remit to change their mind – post election?
They can adn they have.

My favourite is “when you said cuts – I didn’t think you meant MY library, MY school, MY hospital – I thought these were far off cuts which I wouldn’t see”

As scientology proves – you can get anyone to agree to anything if you don’t tell them the full story up front!

I would add that Toby Young (in this example) is a great advert for why “people all following self interest resolves NOTHING”.

Now if we can just get this idiot Government to work that out….

I’m not in favour of faster, deeper cuts.

which could be another reason why you didn’t attend this rally on Saturday.

But the fact remains that you enthusiastically backed it prior to the event.

Why?

Toby Young appears to be a troll. He’s an attention seeking idiot who’s been given far too much credence. He went to the extent of writing a book about how much of an idiot he was, which got made into a film. With Simon Pegg playing him being an idiot.

Now he’s pretending to be a grown up, he seems to spend his time trolling everyone. Stupid idea (his ‘Free School)? check. Boo-yah-ing at opponents? Check. Obsessively googling his name and appearing in comment boxes all over the place ranting on at an orthogonal angle to the article?

DNFTT!