Cameron U-turn?

[Gromit]

It was all so clear. The Tory's would be brave enough to make the hard decisions and would tackle the county's huge deficit, head on. They would cut spending even if the cuts might hurt.

Except, they seem to have changed their minds. Now they are saying their will be no cuts for at least a year.

http://www.timesonlin...cs/article7010385.ece

Is it any way to run an Opposition Party?

[youngmafbog]

Thats not quite true. They say their will be no swingeing cuts for a year but oterh cuts will take place.

I find it very dissappointing to be honest. I feel like a man without a party.

[jake-the-peg]

I have to give them credit - they realised that immediate cuts would trigger a second recession and changed their minds.

I think too often stubborness in the face of overwhelming evidence is portrayed as a good thing.

"The lady's not for turning" is not a good quote when you're driving towards a cliff.

Interesting though as it does largely distroy the clear blue water between the two main parties.

Presumably Cameron's looked at the polls and seen that he doesn't yet have enough for a clear majority. Changing this will make it harder to distinguish on policy and move more onto the personality debate where he's stronger.

Quite an astute political move

[youngmafbog]

Just what is the overwhelming evidence. It is dangerous nonsence that we cant cut public spendin.
this country is saddled with the biggest debt of any advanced economy yest still borrowing £200 bn a year and printing billions to keep afloat. As Vince Cable has warned, we are not far from being in the same state as pathetic Iceland.
Or creditors have threatened to pull the plug if we dont adddress the debt and believe me they will.
There is plenty to cut without slashing jobs or doctors or nurses (another lefty myth). Lets start with the 1,162 Quangos costing £70 bn just there to tell us what to do in public (and incresingly in private)

[buildersmate]

I think that it is more likely that it is difficult to cut much out of public expenditure that quickly (i.e. within the 2010/11 year). There are three main areas:
Capital projects
Civil servant salaries
Hand-outs to various needy (or not-so-needy) groups in terms of benefits.

Capital projects take a time to turn off - contracts already set-up have penalty clauses in them, so it takes around 12 months for that to 'work through' - if all new investment projects under negotiation were canned now.
Civil servants have to be subject to consultation periods over proposed redundancies are many are on contract clauses that give 6 to 12 months salary anyway - so nothing doing there in-year (always assuming the 'task' can be just turned off)
Benefits can be gradually eroded - removal of the optional ones (like the Child Investment accounts) have already been grabbed by the present Government. Again no big sources of savings there.

[VHG]

The trouble is that Brown has created a country where almost everyone is dependant on government money (either on the dole or other benefits, or working for the government in some way).

Asking people dependant on that money to vote him out is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Of course another 4 years of Brown and Labour could really finish this country off.

But then that seems to have been Browns plan all along.