-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Oh, and because UK democracy is awesome, my MP got back to me after I sent a letter to him about the immigration cap.
My letter to him:
Dear Mr Bebb,
I'm writing as a concerned constituent that lives in Llandudno out of term time (I study in York).
Your colleague, Mr Damien Green, has proposed a number of changes to the immigration system that would force not only my girlfriend, but also me, to leave the country. Mr Green proposed that the minimum wage at which a non-EU worker can get a sponsored job is £31,000 a year, a shockingly high amount for a graduate, especially in the North Wales area where we ultimately want to live and work.
I did not vote for you in the last election, but I appreciate the work you have done in the area since your election and I would really like it if you could stand up against this unfair cap on immigration that makes sense in areas like London where immigration is at such a high level, but that makes absolutely no sense in areas like North Wales that need to be looking to attract skilled immigrants such as my girlfriend (who is from Taiwan).
Putting a nationwide cap on immigration is not the answer Mr Bebb, and I ask that you represent my views to those within your party, or the commons.
Thanks for your time,
______ Meadows
then he replied to me:
--------------------------
Dear Mr. Meadows,
Thank you for your email contacting me about proposals on capping immigration to the UK.
I do agree that the thresholds quoted appear somewhat high and perhaps these need to be looked at on a more local level.
However this is a proposal at the moment but I shall keep a close watch on the progress of any such proposals.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Guto Bebb
Member of Parliament/Aelod Seneddol - Aberconwy
Awesome! I do like him to be fair, he's always seemed like a good politician (and I reckon he's a lefty anyway, he used to be Plaid)
My letter to him:
Dear Mr Bebb,
I'm writing as a concerned constituent that lives in Llandudno out of term time (I study in York).
Your colleague, Mr Damien Green, has proposed a number of changes to the immigration system that would force not only my girlfriend, but also me, to leave the country. Mr Green proposed that the minimum wage at which a non-EU worker can get a sponsored job is £31,000 a year, a shockingly high amount for a graduate, especially in the North Wales area where we ultimately want to live and work.
I did not vote for you in the last election, but I appreciate the work you have done in the area since your election and I would really like it if you could stand up against this unfair cap on immigration that makes sense in areas like London where immigration is at such a high level, but that makes absolutely no sense in areas like North Wales that need to be looking to attract skilled immigrants such as my girlfriend (who is from Taiwan).
Putting a nationwide cap on immigration is not the answer Mr Bebb, and I ask that you represent my views to those within your party, or the commons.
Thanks for your time,
______ Meadows
then he replied to me:
--------------------------
Dear Mr. Meadows,
Thank you for your email contacting me about proposals on capping immigration to the UK.
I do agree that the thresholds quoted appear somewhat high and perhaps these need to be looked at on a more local level.
However this is a proposal at the moment but I shall keep a close watch on the progress of any such proposals.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Guto Bebb
Member of Parliament/Aelod Seneddol - Aberconwy
Awesome! I do like him to be fair, he's always seemed like a good politician (and I reckon he's a lefty anyway, he used to be Plaid)
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Of course. A good indicator is worldwide trade figures. UK export increased in December by 0.9% and imports decreased by around 4.5%, German exports decreased by nearly 5% in the same month. Chinese imports increased by 2%. Chinese demand for overseas products is starting to show signs of life, and in December, at least, the UK was able to capitalise where Germany wasn't.
There is a good chance that we will export our way out of this crisis and the economy will rebalance, the idea took a hit last year when it looked like our largest trading partner (the EU) was falling into the abyss, but now with our trade delegations and agreements showing good form in developing nations and with the US and other Anglo nations recovering there is a good chance that we can basically ignore the EU crisis.
We released a report on this at the end of last year, we think if the government make a commitment to reduce our reliance on the single market we can reduce our net trade with Europe from around 40% to 30% by the end of the decade by increasing our trade with the rest of the world. The Single Market is not the be all and end all of our trade, and with an increasing hostile stance from the continent we need to reduce our net trade position with Europe and find more partners to export and import from.
killer_clank
Member
Glasgow, probably the most corrupt and sleazy council in the UK due to 30 years of single party rule appears to be imploding. This is good news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16964356
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16964356
louis89
Member
So uh, how about that Indian jet deal ;-;
killer_clank
Member
Osborne himself? He's the guy who handles election strategies, and it's by far the tories weakest link right now. Cameron's rhetoric about the NHS before he came to power has been shown to be utter guff.
Definitely possible. And you're almost definitely right about Ken Clarke being one.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Begins with O and ends in e
Osborne!
He's wanted it dead since its inception, and we are coming to the endgame now. Cammo must choose Osborne or Lansley.
The opposition is actually:
Osborne
Gove
IDS
All from the right wing, all want it gone.
huh weird, that's totally the opposite to who I thought
zomgbbqftw
Banned
You have to look at who was briefed (the Times and ConHome) and know the relationships between Cabinet members. Lansley is not popular with the Gove neo-con wing, he is not popular with the IDS social conservative wing and he is not popular with the economically conservative wing (Osborne) either. Lansley himself is ex-SDP which is pretty much the worst crime a Tory can commit.
Osborne sees the cost not only in monetary terms, but also in political terms. Cameron has staked his personal credibility to the NHS, and Lansley is very unlikely to deliver (in fact his reforms will make the NHS much, much worse and more expensive) so going into the next election Labour will campaign on Dave's broken NHS promise and all of that detoxification of the Tory brand is worth less than zero. If Dave drops the bill and Lansley and makes him the fall guy, he can get away with most of his credibility intact, but it is getting very late in the day, and the later it gets the harder it becomes to row back without handing a massive victory to Labour. The base problem is that the NHS is facing a funding crisis of sorts, one that would have happened regardless of which party or coalition ended up in power back in 2010, but now Labour will be able to blame Lansley/Dave for all the hospital closures, if any doctor or nurse gets fired you can bet they will be invited on stage to the Labour conference where Ed will laud them and blame Dave for it, even though the real reason for the funding shortage is Labour's deficit.
That is why Cammo will drop the bill and fire Lansley. He can't afford not to.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Spot on. Though I am surprised at IDS. Osborne and Gove have the appropriate slipperiness for this (which is why it was difficult to see Clarke as one of the three) but IDS doesn't (much as I dislike him). Perhaps his experience as leader taught him otherwise. This is a good speculative article on it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/10/cabinet-ministers-lansley-nhs-bill .
In other news, Eric Pickles proves himself to be a prick again. http://bit.ly/wWtbpR . Some great quotes in there, my favourite being:
"I've got no doubt the agenda of the National Secular Society is inch by inch to drive religion out of the public sphere.
"If they get their way it will have enormous implications for prayers in parliament, Remembrance Day, the jubilee celebrations, even the singing of the national anthem."
Sounds fantastic!
killer_clank
Member
The whole thing is despicable. Absolutely no mention of the planned 'reforms' in either the Conservative or LD manifestos, nor the coalition programme for government. Basically every health organisation against it. People should be on the streets protesting student fees style, it will essentially ruin the English NHS.
In terms of political credibility, I fixed that for you. The way Cameron has stood by his man up till now makes me wary of using such insistent modal verbiage as "will". If he doesn't, even after all the protest both inside and out, then odds are Lansley has something epic on Cameron. There would be no other logical explanation for such actions.
Really, though, the bill should never have come up in the first place. Why did the coalition even allow this situation to arise? Doesn't seem like them at all.
If the health bill still goes through somehow, it'll be this government's Poll Tax. They'll never recover from it.
Oh, and good on Clive Bone and the National Secular Society who won their court case yesterday. It's perhaps a tiny victory about an otherwise insignificant issue, true, but it also demonstrates that the courts understand one of the basic principles of democracy - that Church and State must be kept separate, lest we end up like the American South.
killer_clank
Member
Pfff, only 3 decades? That's nothing! My hometown (and the entire region for that matter) has had Social Democratic rule since 1919. Suck on that one
killer_clank
Member
Pfff, only 3 decades? That's nothing! My hometown (and the entire region for that matter) has had Social Democratic rule since 1919. Suck on that one
Where's this?
I, essentially, don't think that people think it will go through.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I don't think this case is quite the good thing that it may appear to be. Far from demonstrating that the courts understand that Church and State must be kept separate (which, by the way, is not a principle recognised in English law - as maybe you'd expect of a country where bishops appointed by the Prime Minister get to sit in the legislature) it was decided on the very narrow ground that the council lacks any statutory power to hold prayers.
And that's a very worrying precedent for anyone (such as me) who is in favour of local democracy and somewhat less in favour of all control being exercised from Westminster.
Because there are all manner of things that could now be challenged using this case as a precedent, some of them trivial and some less so. There is for example, no express statutory power for councils to provide tea and biscuits at meetings, or to hold fireworks displays, or to jointly merge services with neighbouring councils for the good of all - and so on ad infinitum.
It isn't a victory for secularism, it is a victory for centralised statutory control of every tiny thing that happens at the local level. And in my book that is not good news.
Pickles got the main thrust of the argument right though. The Localisation Act should have taken this stuff out of the realm of statutory control - in effect the manner in which a council conducts its business is for the council alone.
He's probably right about the agenda of the National Secular Society (the name is a bit of a giveaway), but overstates the impact they might have on Parliament, government, the Crown - none of which fall under the same statutory constraints as councils do.
But he should probably have focussed in on the Localisation Act (which after all is his pet, and intended to free councils from central interference) rather than trying to defend against secularism.
louis89
Member
Because we saw how effective that was...
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
I don't understand the NHS changes.
From my understanding, this is pretty much turning most of it into a big PFI scheme, but with less top-down control. Make no mistake, the GPs being given control of their funding will, 95% of the time, hire a private company to run the management side of things.
As this sort of thing has been proven time and time again not to save money, what is the purpose of it?
From my understanding, this is pretty much turning most of it into a big PFI scheme, but with less top-down control. Make no mistake, the GPs being given control of their funding will, 95% of the time, hire a private company to run the management side of things.
As this sort of thing has been proven time and time again not to save money, what is the purpose of it?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I don't think so.
There is already talk of a Tory rebellion on the next reading of the bill, all it would take is for the Lib Dems to pull the rug and it would be finished as Labour would whip their vote.
Many Tories in Con/Lab marginals are very worried about this bill, and the Lib Dems are also considering their position on it. Expect them to pull their support at their Spring conference, and for talk of a rebellion to start and for Dave to soften his stance. Right now, Dave has to act tough so to keep Cabinet ministers in line, but he knows that the bill has to be killed, he just needs to do on terms that aren't dictated to him.
I do fear for Dave as PM though, this is a completely self-inflicted wound, any political novice could have told him that reforming the NHS in such a massive manner after campaigning on not reorganising it would open him up for a world of hurt. I know the Chancellor warned him of exactly this in October of 2010, and other Cabinet ministers have expressed their many grievances about it inbetween.
Basically, Dave can't be seen to be kowtowing to rebellious Ministers, but the bill is dead now. I don't think he can carry the party for such a deeply unpopular bill amongst Lib Dem and Tory ranks.
Remember before the election where Cameron was tripping over himself to stress how he WOULD NOT TOUCH THE NHS? What a load of shit. I was skeptical about their free schools idea, but they've won me over in that policy, this NHS bill needs to be killed with fire though. Other than this one issue, I'm generally pretty happy with this government.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
My understanding is that there are two main threads to it.
First is GP Commissioning - that if you are ill your diagnosis and treatment through the NHS labyrinth is managed by your GP rather than by the impenetrable complex of hospital trusts, consultants and health authorities that we have at the moment. This seems to me almost entirely a good thing because it means that it is being managed in the patients interest (rather than, say, in the interests of hospital statistics), that you have a single point of escalation if things go wrong (rather than, say, getting stuck between the waiting lists of two different hospitals and three different consultants) and that decisions as to where and how you are treated are taken by somebody who actually talks to you (rather than by somebody who doesn't).
In the current setup far too often (five times in my own family) things fall through the cracks, GP commissioning should go a long way to alleviating that. And that's in the patients' interest. Even if it doesn't save money it is probably a sensible thing to do (and actually it isn't all that far off the way the NHS worked in its early days).
The second is perhaps more controversial, and that's the freedom for hospitals to use their resources up to 49% for private patients. Now, I understand that some people have a fear of letting private money into the NHS, and the way this has been presented doesn't help because it gives the impression that the resources available to treat NHS patients will be reduced to about half of what they are - which doesn't sound good at all.
However, there's a significant amount of capital around in the private sector already, and the current danger is that the NHS will be obliged to outsource a lot of routine procedures and expensive diagnostics at commercial rates through not having the facilities itself. Either that, or facilities will increasingly be centralised in the large teaching hospitals and withdrawn from local hospitals - which is a very significant inconvenience for people who don't have their own transport. Especially if they are ill. This 49% thing would allow local hospitals to invest in equipment and facilities at something like a net zero cost to the NHS, to pay internally at cost for treating NHS patients (so, cheaper than commercial rates) and to retain control over large chunks of health expenditure that would otherwise vanish into the private sector.
I don't see anything wrong with that. In particular, if in time it means that the UK private health sector is dependent on the NHS rather than the other way round it seems more likely to guarantee the long-term viability of the NHS.
Politically, of course, it is downright dangerous for the coalition. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad thing to do, or that it threatens in any real way how the NHS operates. Much of the opposition is a great deal of fuss about nothing for the purposes of politicking, which I find rather distasteful.
Surely what Cameron said was that he would support the NHS, rather than that he would preserve it untouched? I don't see anything here that is destructive of the principles of the NHS or of the principle of free healthcare.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
While I see your point, not everyone agrees on the glories of local democracy. Perhaps it is a stereotype, but local government has in my experience been ineffective and cowtowing to a passive majority (I am from the South-East, we have been Tory-ruled for all but six years since the 1884 ROPact in parliament, with not a great deal of variation locally). Not everything can be left down to central planning, but in regions with uncompetitive elections, (locally and parliamentary)I don't feel that there is the same drive for effectiveness.
Personally, I feel that the central government should be firm in establishing a separation between church and state, and this should be applicable all over. That is the only way, I believe in which a genuine secular state can be established. Which is of course what I want and believe to be right.
I think it was one of those unspoken things, inferred from what he said. Cameron spoke often about how much he loved the NHS and would protect it, thus people assumed that he would wish to preserve the fundamentals of it (which, rightly or wrongly, many see the current plans as eroding). It doesn't classify as a lie but it is deceptive. For something as vast and important as the NHS, I feel it is very wrong.
As for whether he'll drop it or not, I think that Cameron wants to go down as a big-politician; a game-changer. He wants to do what Thatcher couldn't... But ultimately if he cannot do it, then it will be dropped.
Hmmm, what Cameron said was
I'd struggle to describe what I believe is the largest organisational change ever (in the world?) as anything but that.
With the GPs, while I don't disagree with their involvment in the commissioning element, that could surely have been managed with an evolution of the current structure rather than the classic governement (Tory or Labour) tactic of tearing down everything currently in place and replacing it with something brand new and basically untried.
I also suspect the GPs have realised that this isn't a bit of a free ride like they got with the last GP contracts (which the massively benefited from - thanks to piss poor contracting from labour), that they are basically going to have to take on the PCTs or set up similar organisations which most of them aren't set up to do, and that they will be in the firing line if anything doesn't work.
The 49% thing is total lunacy, it just makes it LOOK like privitisation, whether intended or not. Isn't the highest in any hospital currently about 15%? Madness as it just makes headlines.
I'd struggle to describe what I believe is the largest organisational change ever (in the world?) as anything but that.
With the GPs, while I don't disagree with their involvment in the commissioning element, that could surely have been managed with an evolution of the current structure rather than the classic governement (Tory or Labour) tactic of tearing down everything currently in place and replacing it with something brand new and basically untried.
I also suspect the GPs have realised that this isn't a bit of a free ride like they got with the last GP contracts (which the massively benefited from - thanks to piss poor contracting from labour), that they are basically going to have to take on the PCTs or set up similar organisations which most of them aren't set up to do, and that they will be in the firing line if anything doesn't work.
The 49% thing is total lunacy, it just makes it LOOK like privitisation, whether intended or not. Isn't the highest in any hospital currently about 15%? Madness as it just makes headlines.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Oh, I agree with you on that, all the way. There's been a whole raft of things that have curtailed the effectiveness of local democracy over the years (even where I live, which is a sensitive Tory/LibDem marginal). Perhaps the worst of them is the trend towards cabinet-style government in councils, which as well as entrenching majorities effectively excludes independent councillors from all decision-making, and the various completely bizarre rules that seem to prevent councillors from voting on things they have campaigned for (and been elected to stand up for) on the grounds they may be seen to have a bias.
Part of that is because of the pernicious influence of the main political parties at local level, and part is from fear of decisions being overturned through judicial review - and at least the latter of these should be far less likely after the Localisation Act (which is why I worry about this particular judgment).
Just because I'm all in favour of local democracy doesn't mean I'm all in favour of the way it works now (which is essentially the same argument that Cameron has on the NHS).
And the right first step for this would be to disestablish the Church of England, which doesn't seem to me to be all that hard or to pose any particular constitutional difficulties. I really don't understand why no party has seriously proposed it yet. Sure there'd be a backlash from bishops, who seem (rather too much) to have the ear of the press, but that would die down pretty quickly.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ah, thanks for that shock33. This is the trouble with politics-by-soundbite though, you can read it pretty well any way you want to because it doesn't explain anything properly. For example, you could read that line as meaning "I won't change the NHS at all" (which would be daft), or as "any changes to the NHS are going to be led by doctors rather than government" (which would be equally daft), or as "what we're not going to do is fiddlefart around with targets and pretend we've done something" (which would be good), or as pretty well anything else short of abolishing the NHS entirely.
That's not particularly Cameron's fault though - it's the way things are.
I don't think it could reasonably have been 'evolved' from the current structure, which is just vastly geared to managing hospital throughputs, consultant incomes and waiting list targets. Trouble with the waiting list thing is there is this perception that everyone has to be treated equally which means that everyone goes on the same (18-weekish) waiting list for everything (because otherwise it creates a "two-tier" system, which is apparently bad). Which means that if you get referred to the wrong specialist for the wrong diagnosis you've (a) had to wait an age for it and (b) then have to go on yet another waiting list, and maybe another one after that and so on, to even work out what is wrong. That turns out to be efficient in utilising resources and meeting government targets, but damnably horrible for anyone who has got something that is difficult to diagnose.
That's where GP commissioning should help, because the GP knows (and the hospital call centre doesn't) that this patient has been in agony for a year and that a further 18 weeks wait is just not good enough.
Absolutely. And it is the good GPs that welcome this because it means they can serve their patients better and get less hassle in the long run (a vast amount of GP time is taken up in keeping people going until their appointment turns up).
Now, of course there are difficulties about this. Largely around the people infrastructure needed to do it, or whether GP consortia effectively take over the PCTs and so on - and that's a worry in many areas. And many GPs value their independence (both good and bad ones) and are a bit reluctant to get caught up in this stuff. The devil here is in the detail, not in the principle.
And yes, they'll be in the firing line if it doesn't work for their patients - and that is completely to the good, because it means that the patient has somebody to refer to, to escalate to, to complain at - which they do not currently have.
Spin.
If the highest in any current hospital is 15% then we have a problem, The problem is that the facilities that are needed in the NHS are not there. They are in the private sector instead.
For example, there's a hospital near me that ran a charitable appeal to buy some sort of scanner thing (probably a PET). It took two or three years to raise the money (and charitable donations are private money as well). It's there now and it's really useful for local NHS patients, but it is a bit of a drain on PCT resources as it has to be staffed and maintained and all that sort of stuff. Plus isn't anywhere near fully utilised. Private patients here go to a private hospital 20 miles away instead (and you try doing that on public transport with a very sick 14-year-old, not easy). But if the hospital had been able to use it for private bookings then (a) they'd have been able to buy it and staff it at net zero cost to the PCT and without needing donations which could have gone elsewhere, and (b) they'd have had it two or three years earlier, and (c) private patients would have benefited too through not having to travel so far, and (d) there would be an income stream to the PCT that would go to offset some of the cost of providing free treatment.
Like I said before, this is making all the wrong headlines, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing to do.
Really? But the changes to the NHS' structure have been going on (without any public announcement or consultation, of course - how democratic of Cameron!) for some considerable time now, shedding thousands of NHS jobs in the process. Even if the bill is dropped, are we just supposed to leave things half-changed, and valuable staff unemployed?
Agreed about the self-inflicted wound. This whole thing was silly, and should never have happened.
Clay Davis
Member
yep, i've known people who made redundant because of this bill and their job is to be replaced by another quango or some other committee/board. the bill isn't going anywhere, they've implemented so many of the changes already that to abandon it now would leave the nhs is near death state.
it's happening, people are going to have accept it. the tories might face a backlash from some backbenchers, but the lib dems will back them fully and the bill will continue. it's naive to think they can abandon it now. they could have abandoned it when it was in the 6 month consultation period but they chose not to and instead began to push ahead with changes while people thought the bill was in a state of a paralysis.
And that's the thing isn't it? Let's be honest, they made a rod for their own backs with what Cameron said before the election (and was part of the coalition manifesto) and they are now getting HAMMERED from every side.
As zomgbbqftw said, like it or not the public at large does not trust the tories with the NHS and one of Camerons successes was in reassuring the public that they wouldn't do anything major to upset the applecart. The whole bill and the spin (true or not) that the opposition can put on it instantly toxifies the brand again for independent voters and may well cost them the next election.
I would imagine it's especially galling given that polling has suggested the public at large are supporting the current economic policies which everyone was expecting to be the big bone of contention (and no doubt will become again when the cuts start to bite this year).
Simon Hughes (deputy LD leader) calls for Lansley to go after bill passed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17002166
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17002166
The real problem with the health bill is communication. I have no real understanding about what this bill means for the NHS and it is all so complicated that I can't really feel like I can make an informed decision about it either way and Lansley has to be blamed for that.
Im hearing that many MPs would rather the bill go through and just get to a stage where the NHS has a degree of certainty about it's future. Dropping the bill after 18 months consultation, sacking Lansley and starting again isn't something the health system can afford with the kind of savings it has to make in the near term.
Im hearing that many MPs would rather the bill go through and just get to a stage where the NHS has a degree of certainty about it's future. Dropping the bill after 18 months consultation, sacking Lansley and starting again isn't something the health system can afford with the kind of savings it has to make in the near term.
Too little too late, damage already done, et tu Lansley?, etc.
I can't believe the LD grass roots are willing to just stand by and let this happen merely to keep their grip on power. I thought they were supposed to be principled.
Read Phisheep's post above, but take it with a truckload of salt. The bill is basically semi-privatization of the NHS by the back door, and is already proceeding, despite supposedly being in "consultation". Once the public understands what's happening, they'll be up in (figurative) arms. Think the Poll Tax protests under Thatcher, but much worse.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Ditching Charles Kennedy was the beginning of this downward spiral for the Lib Dems.
Because it's in line with LD policy?
The Lib Dems said in their manifesto that they wanted to let people use private care and let the NHS pay for it if the need arose. They also believe that the NHS would benefit from competition.
Remember, the Liberal Democrats aren't left wing, they're free-market centerists.
killer_clank
Member
Indeed, though I'd argue under Kennedy they were getting pretty left wing. Clegg came in and no one noticed the shift to the right. Even still they should not be agreeing with the NHS reforms.
In other news,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17008208
light at the end of the tunnel?sssss
Yeah, but I appreciate Clegg in a different way, he's a radical centerist, and whereas before under Kennedy and Campbell they were a Labour-lite or even a Green-lite, they have their own platform now "proper centerism".
It might not be what a lot of people on GAF agree with but it's a choice and a better one than under Kennedy and Campbell, and one that I believe in.
Exterminieren
Banned
The CBI hyping up Britain's economic prospects? Shocked I tell you, shocked.
I refuse to link to the Sun's website, but have we seen Trevor Kavanagh's pitiful bleating this morning? I hope his concern extends to the next time Sun journalists gleefully attend morning raids.
Now that The Sun on Sunday has been decisively torpedoed, hopefully the main Sun can follow it.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
UK put on negative credit watch by Moody's
Citing that there is reduced political will for fiscal consolidation, the cuts are now too slow and too shallow. They urge the Chancellor to quicken the pace of the cuts and go deeper to bring the public finances back under control faster.
I expect this will mean more cuts in the March budget. We can't afford to lose the AAA rating, even if it is just Moody's (rather than S&P), there are enough warning signs for the government to quicken the pace of the cuts and bring the public finances back into line.
Citing that there is reduced political will for fiscal consolidation, the cuts are now too slow and too shallow. They urge the Chancellor to quicken the pace of the cuts and go deeper to bring the public finances back under control faster.
I expect this will mean more cuts in the March budget. We can't afford to lose the AAA rating, even if it is just Moody's (rather than S&P), there are enough warning signs for the government to quicken the pace of the cuts and bring the public finances back into line.
I thought he earmarked additional cuts in his previous statement?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
No additional cuts. £158bn worth of additional borrowing over 5 years compared to the original plan. That's why Moody's have put us on negative watch. Expect the Chancellor to announce extra cuts in just over a month. He has no choice.
He was always going to do it anyway, as it's been obvious the economy isn't going to expand at the rate the goverment predicted it would. Also it would be really embarrasing for the goverment if Britain did lose it's AAA rating - especially as they have been gloating about it to the rest of Europe, and used it as a political wepon to beat Labour over the head with it.