Conservatives humiliated! Massive gains for Labour!

[saxitoxin]

We would have to have cuts in police, we would have to have cuts in the schools budget, we would have to have cuts in the defence budget.

We can make no commitment to reverse any of the Government's tax rises or spending cuts because we don't know the state of the economy we are going to inherit and what the fiscal position will be.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 87589.html

Police/Schools: In your opinion are cuts in police and schools (set aside cuts in defence for the moment) (a) better for the UK (b) not better for the UK, than the Tories proposed cuts? Why?

During riots that would accompany increases in student fees under Labour, would a smaller number of UK police be able to restore order where current levels barely succeeded during the 2011 race riots? From an outsider's perspective (which is often wrong) it appeared there was a danger of the state itself collapsing last year. (I read a DPR article that indicated a dramatic worsening was much closer than the public was led to believe - that there were no home-deployed military reserves around to call on would the police have been overrun. No government = 100% austerity.)

Defence: I think the UK could accomplish dramatic cuts in defence but it would have to be accompanied by a major realignment of foreign policy so that the military could safely become just a small home island defence force, which is basically the next step below its current level. I'm confident a Labour government could make cuts (easy - a few keystrokes in MS Excel). Has Labour indicated they have the courage to change foreign policy (from global-focus to local, North Sea focus) in a way that would make such cuts responsible?

This shocked the west in 1961 - reliable allies was supposed to mean Portugal didn't need much. But Portugal overestimated the interest of other nations in defending Portuguese territory. I don't know what allies the UK has in 2012 that are any more reliable than Portugal's principal ally in 1961 (ironically, the UK).

Defence: We could definitely cut back on the "defence" budget and I doubt many people would care too much, the people caring would probably not be British if you catch my drift.

I'm not trying to be coy, but I actually don't catch your drift?

In any case, the question then for outside observers - if Labour realised a fairly inconsequential 2.5% budget savings by cutting the UK armed forces in half - should the UK forfeit her permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

Could a nation with a land area smaller than one Canadian province, a national population only 5 or 6 times larger than the city of Bogotá, armed forces smaller than Holland and low-average foreign aid spending, logically justify having a permanent seat on the UNSC? If the UK kept her seat you'd - at that point - not just have Japan and Brazil arguing for Security Council permanent seats, but Finland, Belgium and Liechtenstein could all make good cases why they should have a permanent seat, too.

While many Britons seem bullish on cutting defence spending from its current bare-bones levels, the loss of the remaining symbols of worldly influence - in my perception - would be a lot for many Britons to bear. The shift in culture, national mindset and view of UK's place in the world that would gradually emerge in the new reality after these cuts could be one of the most fascinating sociological case studies of the last 200 years. Definitely interesting times!

Labour were going to cut back the same things as the Torries and at a similar rate. Defence, police, NHS, schools, welfare programs.. absolutely everything. They defend this by claiming their cuts would have been "morally fair". There is little difference, its just opposition for the sake of opposition.

That seems to be a fair statement.

[pmchugh]

The US would care, the international community would care and so would the countries we are invading. Perhaps you are right, people don't like an ego bruising. I certainly don't care about the strength of Britain's armed forces but I don't know what the average "Brit" would think about it.

Here are some interesting statistics I found while googling to try find out:

http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/1392.pdf

It is rather worrying reading to be honest. Especially that "Attack nations suspected of harbouring terrorists" and "Ensure supply of key resources" were both above 3 (middle ground) in how "justified" they were as reasons to go to war

Although it is not strictly what you asked, I am guessing you are right that some idiots would hate no longer being part of the world police.

[nagerous]

Are those proposed reforms by Labour much like the proposed reforms by Democrats in the US: all superficial that don't address any of the problems present? In the US, if the Democrats even propose spending cuts, they want to cut the pace of budget increases, even though year-over-year spending will still increase. REAL cuts require sacrifice because today's society has decided that they'd rather the government give them everything they want then work to leave their children with a better society than the one they had. Of course that idea would be unpopular, but it's necessary.

I appreciate that you want to bring this back on to home turf, but the REAL cuts that the coalition have proposed seem more about crippling the NHS. Labour had a poor record with regards to the NHS, with many people seeing them as overloading it with bureaucracy. That was why many people voted against them- the economy being the larger reason, of course. The conservatives promised they wouldn't attack the NHS.

The new Labour leadership run on a very simple message- "You can't trust the Conservatives with the NHS". And really, you can't.

So were they just trying to cut the bureaucracy, or go further? If people voted them in to cut the bureaucracy, why are they complaining and trying to vote them out?

He claimed that cuts were necessary in order to pull the country out of economic downturn, something which he has constantly blamed on the previous Government. However, the country has experienced a double-dip recession instead, and this is a clear indication that his program on austerity and budget cuts is not working!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/econ ... -austerity

[GreecePwns]

Surprised? Which country have you seen austerity work so far?

[nagerous]

Surprised? Which country have you seen austerity work so far?

I'm not surprised, then again I am not one of the ignorant electorate who voted the Conservatives based on these false promises. Also, they didn't even get enough votes to get a majority, but through subterfuge and political manoeuvring formed a coalition with another party the Liberal Democrats who many students voted for based on the campaign against budget cuts (yet when offered power alliance completely threw their manifesto in the bin), hence the term used previously 'the coalition of liars.'

[saxitoxin]

Here are some interesting statistics I found while googling to try find out:

http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/1392.pdf

I - These are great statistics and seem to leave two possibilities:

(1) Britons want an armed forces that are larger than a coast guard and a band at Windsor Castle, but, don't want to pay for it,
(2) Britons want an armed forces that are larger than a coast guard and a band at Windsor Castle, and, do want to pay for it,

According to this poll, #2 seems to be the case.

II - On the question of police, during the '11 race riots, public opinion was in favor of more police spending. So, the Conservatives just have to call elections during the summer riot season and calls by Labour to cut police spending will be poorly received.

III - Britons don't want cuts in education and social spending.

Is this the state of public opinion in Britain? (Obviously this is an oversimplification for emphasis of an outsider's perception, so bear with those of us non-Britons here.)

[comic boy]

I would say that education and the NHS are the sacred cows of public spending , otherwise there is a reasonable concensus that social spending needs trimming , where and how fast are the bones of contention.
The public sector workforce increased a great deal during successive Labour administrations and that is where the fat lays , of course they dont see it that way and lead the anti cuts protests, that distorts the picture somewhat.

[BigBallinStalin]

Surprised? Which country have you seen austerity work so far?

The economic transition from soviet-style state planning toward a more market-based economy? That requires significant cuts in government spending.

[pmchugh]

Here are some interesting statistics I found while googling to try find out:

http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/1392.pdf

I - These are great statistics and seem to leave two possibilities:

(1) Britons want an armed forces that are larger than a coast guard and a band at Windsor Castle, but, don't want to pay for it,
(2) Britons want an armed forces that are larger than a coast guard and a band at Windsor Castle, and, do want to pay for it,

According to this poll, #2 seems to be the case.

II - On the question of police, during the '11 race riots, public opinion was in favor of more police spending. So, the Conservatives just have to call elections during the summer riot season and calls by Labour to cut police spending will be poorly received.

III - Britons don't want cuts in education and social spending.

Is this the state of public opinion in Britain? (Obviously this is an oversimplification for emphasis of an outsider's perception, so bear with those of us non-Britons here.)

I and III you are right, people don't want services cut. People are silly, they complain about every service cut and yet still believe austerity is the way to escape this economic mess, leaving them fairly confused. This probably accounts for the swings between the ever so slightly left and the ever so slightly right in this country.

II- Actually the Torries cut the police more than Labour would have (20% compared to 12%) so dear old Ed blamed the Torries cuts during the riots Also we now have fixed term elections to stop people from calling them whenever it suits.

Summary of British Politics:
Labour say: Torries cut too much, they are damaging the economy.
Torries say: Labour got us into this mess.
Lib Dems say: Torries cuts would be worse without us in government.

They all use negative campaigning and they all have very similar approaches in how to tackle the economy.