Now even Tory voters tell Osborne to ease up on spending cuts

Poll shows vast majority of public want Chancellor to boost economy with a 'Plan B'
Andrew Grice

Tuesday 29 November 2011


An overwhelming majority of the public believes that George Osborne should slow down his spending cuts in order to boost Britain's anaemic growth levels, according to a ComRes poll for The Independent. The findings suggest growing public fears – including among the majority of Conservative supporters – that the deep cuts may be choking off a recovery.

Asked whether the Government should slow the pace of the cuts so that it can try to boost growth, 69 per cent agree and 24 per cent disagree. Even 54 per cent of Conservative supporters want to delay the cuts, as do 71 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters and 86 per cent of Labour voters.

Despite this support for a "Plan B", the Chancellor will stick to his Plan A deficit reduction strategy in his Autumn Statement today. But his raft of measures to revive the flatlining economy look certain to be overshadowed by gloomy forecasts on growth, borrowing and jobs by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

It is likely to show that Mr Osborne will meet his "fiscal mandate" to eliminate the structural deficit (the part not caused by temporary factors in the downturn) two years later than he initially hoped – by 2016-17. That could mean that, despite the pain of the cuts, he will not reduce the deficit any faster than Labour would have done. The spending plans of Alistair Darling, his predecessor, aimed to halve the total deficit before the next election in 2015 and wipe out the structural deficit by 2016-17.

Yesterday brought a warning that Britain is already sliding into a mild double-dip recession from a respected international think-tank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mr Osborne will seize on a finding by the OBR that Britain has reaped a £20bn "safe haven" dividend from enjoying lower gilt rates than other countries. While insisting he will do whatever it takes to meet his "fiscal mandate," he will find room to promise up to £3,500 a year of help towards child care costs for 130,000 more two-year-olds from low-income families. The £680m, three-year scheme, for which the Liberal Democrats lobbied hard, will help twice as many children as originally planned.

The Chancellor will announce 50 per cent tax relief for people who invest in small firms with fewer than 25 employees and gross assets of less than £200,000.

The public's doubts about his overall strategy are revealed by the ComRes survey. By 69 to 23 per cent, people do not believe higher unemployment is a price worth paying in order to reduce the deficit. Only a third of Conservative voters (36 per cent) agree with this statement.

However, ministers appear to have convinced many voters that low growth in Britain is mainly due to the eurozone crisis. Some 50 per cent agree with this statement and 39 per cent disagree. A majority (53 per cent) of Labour voters mainly blame the eurozone, as do 52 per cent of Tory voters and 65 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters.

The public is not convinced that Labour would do a better job of sorting out Britain's economy. Only 29 per cent believe it would, while 48 per cent disagree and 23 per cent say they do not know. Only 9 per cent of Conservative supporters, 21 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters and 64 per cent of Labour voters think that Labour would do better.

Labour's lead over the Conservatives has halved to two points since the ComRes survey for The Independent on Sunday a week ago. Labour is now on 39 per cent (no change), the Conservatives 37 per cent (up two points), the Liberal Democrats 10 per cent (down one point) and other parties 14 per cent (down one).

ComRes interviewed 1,001 GB adults by telephone between 25 and 27 November. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of all GB adults and by past vote recall. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables at www.comres.co.uk.

Now even Tory voters tell Osborne to ease up on spending cuts - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

So.... everyone wants more money right now. What a surprise.

Question: What do we do about the deficit?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

How about we impose a 50% tax on everyone with assets of more than £10 million?

Fine by me. Anyone proposing that?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

No. Why is that?

Because the unions think they got a better chance to fuck the poor, the excluded and the young than the seriously well-heeled?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

The unions are defending the poor, the excluded and the young against the well-heeled. The question remains: why does trhis system allow these as options?

Originally Posted by contracycle

The unions are defending the poor, the excluded and the young against the well-heeled.

Repeating it without evidence will not change my mind. Evidence from the recent past as well, please, not the 1800s.

Quote:

The question remains: why does this system allow these as options?

As opposed to what? ... Yeah, I know your answer but that wasn't the question.

I would even agree that the rich or their political lackeys such as Cameron are very keen on using divide and conquer when it comes to labour demands. And my point is that the unions, as opposed to something like OWS, were perfectly willing to play into that divide and conquer game as long as they weren't losing too badly.

So the young, the poor, the unemployed, the underemployed, the private sector get fucked repeatedly but the unions? Not so much. Hence, they're really just the modern version of a medieval guild. And the bosses are the aristocrats. If I am a dung shoveling serf, neither do me any favour...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I would even agree that the rich or their political lackeys such as Cameron are very keen on using divide and conquer when it comes to labour demands. And my point is that the unions, as opposed to something like OWS, were perfectly willing to play into that divide and conquer game as long as they weren't losing too badly.

Untrue, they have consistently campaigned agains inequality, and still have a "living wage" campaign still on the go.

Quote:

So the young, the poor, the unemployed, the underemployed, the private sector get fucked repeatedly but the unions?

Pure bullshit.

Quote:

Not so much. Hence, they're really just the modern version of a medieval guild. And the bosses are the aristocrats. If I am a dung shoveling serf, neither do me any favour...

Spare me all this playing-the-victim. You're not remotely as deep in the shit as the unionsed workforce are, and it;s probably for that very reason that you aren't a union member yourself. So really what you are bitching about is that those other peasants are getting uppity, and that everyone who provides the services you happen to buy should be reduced to penury for your benefit.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Untrue, they have consistently campaigned agains inequality, and still have a "living wage" campaign still on the go.

Any impact?

Quote:

Pure bullshit.

Visible in the way that public sector pensions, shit as they might be, are still better than private pensions. Non-unionised workers are definitely easier to fuck.

Quote:

Spare me all this playing-the-victim. You're not remotely as deep in the shit as the unionsed workforce are...

If we're going to get personal, then, no, that's not true. Having worked in various countries and contributed in fits to several systems I have no idea of, my "pension"/retirement plan is nonexistent. And, so far, I haven't managed to save any kind of amount that would allow me to consider stopping working and surviving 30 years.

So, actually, in reality, I am worse off. All I can hope for and pray for is that my career somehow corrects itself during the big saving phase of life (45 yo to 60 yo).

Quote:

and it;s probably for that very reason that you aren't a union member yourself.

It's two things. I don't want to pay the dues and I don't want to spend the time in endless meetings. I tried (briefly) to involve myself in local politics in Paris 11th area (and was told that being a member of the Socialist party meant I had to be a member of a union - although the leader, a young guy - was willing to overlook that 'requirement'. And they were calling me 'comrade'... That's the soft left!). But clearly, the leader was that young guy and all he really needed was people to do his legwork while he and maybe a couple of other guys climbed the greasy pole of party politics. Our political 'ideas' or comments were never going to amount to anything meaningful.

Quote:

So really what you are bitching about is that those other peasants are getting uppity, and that everyone who provides the services you happen to buy should be reduced to penury for your benefit.

No, they're not peasants. They're cathedral masons. I have no say in whether I want a cathedral or not. Or how much I might want to spend on it. But my taxes are funding the damn thing, that's for sure...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.