Spending cuts protest 'utter disgrace', says Haringey Council leader

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by phippsofacto on February 26, 2011 at 17:34

"a council porter was knocked to her feet"

Sitting down on the job no doubt.

Permalink Reply by John D on February 26, 2011 at 18:19

" It just breaks my heart. Making these cuts goes against the grain of what it means to be a Labour politician. We would never have made these cuts under ordinary circumstances and feel that this anger should be directed at the coalition Government."

Well Sheila: don't you feel that the anger should be directed against the previous Labour government ?

Who spent public money like a drunken sailor, stuffed the public services with non-jobs, abandoned checks on illegal immigrants, and relaxed regulation of the financial services ?

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 26, 2011 at 20:54

"We could say they [Congress] spend like drunken sailors. But that would be unfair to drunken sailors. The sailors are spending their own money."  Joke by Ronald Reagan in 1964 at the Republican National Convention.

Joke mangled by John McCain, Republican Primary debate 2007. "
Ronald Reagan used to say, we spend money like a drunken sailor. I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination of the Congress."

You're welcome to express your views John. And I'm sure we could have an interesting conversation about migration, and what constitutes a "non-job".

But over the past ninety years there have been arguments across the political divide about what action social democratic western states can and should take during an economic downturn.

Can we at least agree that Britain's response to the recession and the banking crisis are serious issues. Deserving more than repetition of old Republican jokes?

Permalink Reply by John D on February 27, 2011 at 9:20

I agree, Alan,  that my use of the figurative expression ( which is much older than Reagan ) is unfair to drunken sailors. Drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of cash: Labour governments don't :-)

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 27, 2011 at 11:50

Can I please ask, John, not to score points but because I'm genuinely curious:

● Do you think national Governments should stop issuing bonds?

● Or leave all capital investment to the private sector?

● That our Government should have let Northern Rock and other banks collapse?

● In brief what are your views on John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge?

Permalink Reply by alex on February 26, 2011 at 21:59

The report in the Haringey Independent is totally inaccurate, as are the claims made by Claire Kober. 

The Civic Centre was occupied by local residents and workers angry at the destruction of vital public services.   It followed a huge protest rally outside in which a wide range of community groups from Haringey's local communities demonstrated their concern to stand up for their local services and facilities.  Among the demonstrators were groups of children from threatened play schemes, older people defending vital drop-in centres, youths worried about the 75% cuts to youth services, many other community organisations and also unions and frontline council workers whose jobs are at risk.

The cuts being made are going to devastate Haringey, so it's no surprise that people were angry and wanted to stop them being voted through, hundreds pushed into the Council building, and in any crowd situation people can get pushed or jostled, but there was no deliberate violence against anyone.   Sheila Peacock refers to previous events where things were thrown at councillors, none of that happened on Thursday, they didn't have to evacuate the Council Chamber.  There was no threat of violence against Councillors, in fact Claire Kober and Robert Gorrie came into the Chamber to ask people to leave and while people shouted her down, no-one went near her or threatened her. 

The webcast of the council meeting is nauseating, nearly two hours of politicians of both parties trying to political point score to make themselves feel better.  It doesn't help any of us who are facing the effect of these cuts.  The Councillors all acknowledged how harmful these cuts are and then voted them through.  It's obvious that if we want to protect our services we'll have to do it ourselves.  If you want to get involved, there's info on the website for Haringey Alliance for Public Services, at www.hapsnews.net

Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on February 26, 2011 at 22:50

Can certainly see why people are angry about the cuts, but I guess what I've not been persuaded about yet is that there is an alternative to cutting.  All the main political parties (and expert organisations like the IFS) seem pretty much agreed on the size of the hole in the national finances and the need to deal with it. Even Labour, had they been returned to power last year, planned to recover 2/3 of what was then estimated as a £67billion debt through public sector cuts (and the rest through tax hikes) if this IFS report from the time is right. 

 

Unless there IS another solution, doesn't damaging the Civic Centre, disrupting council meetings and taking up police time just take even more money out of the public purse?

Permalink Reply by alex on February 26, 2011 at 23:09

All the main political parties are more interested in listening to the already rich and powerful than in meeting the needs of the people they are supposed to represent.  There is no need for these cuts at all.  Government cuts to local authority funds total approx £6.5bn.  UK tax avoidance by large companies and wealthy people is estimated at almost £100bn a year. This government and the last sanctioned this.  They also allowed billions of public money to prop up banks and then allowed these banks to pay huge bonuses rather than paying back the money they owed. 

UK Uncut argue against the cuts and encourage everyone to take action to expose the myths about how 'the cuts are necessary' and 'we're all in this together'.  And the PCS website has more detailed info on finances and why the cuts are unnecessary. 

Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on February 27, 2011 at 8:55

Ok, but PCS are a public sector union so are inevitably going to argue that public sector cuts are not necessary - wouldn't be much of an union if they didn't! - and UK Uncut are a pressure group set up specifically to fight cuts. Saying that it's a conspiracy by the political class to shaft the working man/woman is all very well, but that doesn't explain why so many independent and financially expert commentators (including the Institute for Fiscal Studies) also argue that cuts, whilst painful, are necessary. If the solution really was as easy as 'tax the rich and big corporations more' do you not think that some of the UK's financial experts might also have come up with this as an option?

Permalink Reply by alex on February 27, 2011 at 10:38

There have been some financial experts who have suggested this as an option, but, mostly no, the UK's financial experts don't come up with this as an option, because most 'financial experts' benefit from tax avoidance for the super rich.  Be that through the money they make on advising how to go about tax avoidance, or in the case of the large financial advice companies, their own direct tax avoidance. 

 

And while PCS are a public sector union, 'inevitably going to argue that public sector cuts are not necessary', they also represent tax inspectors who have good inside knowledge of all the tax avoidance and evasion that is going on. 

 

It's not so much a conspiracy by the political class, as banks and other huge corporations using their huge finances to influence (putting it politely) those in government to let them increase their huge finances even more by shafting the rest of us.

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 27, 2011 at 11:08

There's a nice snippet in Woody Allen's Annie Hall when a man in a cinema queue expounds on the theories of Marshall McLuhan . . . if you don't know the scene   watch it here.

Please forgive me whoever posted this link before, but Mehdi Hassan seems to have reimagined the Woody Allen scenario for Ed Miliband – with no less than three Nobel Prize winners.

But things aren't as simple as consulting the independent experts. Not all the experts agree. David Klegaron would I’m sure be able to field equally distinguished independent experts to say the opposite.

There are also some very important subsidiary issues. Even if everyone agreed (I do) that local councils could still find and cut out waste and unnecessary spending; and even if we all agreed (we don’t) that these cuts are needed and desirable, there’s still the question of their depth and crazy speed.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 27, 2011 at 9:28

I agree with you about the tax avoidance by the super wealthy and UK corporations and the reasons for the cuts being Tory/Lib-Dem ideology more than the deficit. I think people fail to understand how banks 'create' money and the difference between equity and debt. What is the point in taking a massive stake in a company and then basically letting all the very profitable employees leave, thereby destroying your equity. Certainly if I had a choice of two employers, one of whom would pay me 14% of the profits I made selling dodgy derivatives to my rich contacts and one who wouldn't, I know where I'd go. When the RBS share price gets back to 55p the government will have made their money back. I think that there's an opportunity to make a good profit. As for the money 'lost' in the debt bailout, how much of this was real paper money that the government printed and how much was created by the banks as part of their financing function?

I really wish UKuncut would stick to the corporate tax dodgers. Turning their guns on the middle class boys and girls stealing from the rich and paying all their taxes just seems like envy.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page