Yet again you are short on fact instead seemingly content to rely largely upon subjective opinion; however, I will once more attempt to address the points that you raise in your post (number 33).

1. I certainly would never ‘bank’ (is that intended to be a pun ?) my argument solely upon the edicts of the OECD. However, that having been said, allow me to refresh your memory as to exactly what was said by Pier Carlo Padoan, the chief economist of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:
“We see merit in slowing the pace of fiscal consolidation if there is not so good news on the growth front” and, ““We have seen that (growth numbers) are a bit weaker than expected. Should that continue to be the case, there is scope for slowing the pace.”
And that sir, is totally spin-free and ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ shortly after the OECD had cut its UK growth forecast for the second time this year.

2. With regard to your assumption regarding ‘left-leaning economists’, I would point out that the group of economic experts to which you refer included two former Whitehall advisers and two signatories of last year’s high-profile letter backing the Tories’ cuts, who have now said that they have ‘profound concerns about the direction of Treasury policy’.

With reference to your statement that, (***)”I don’t hold much store by any economists and, “I think they claim to understand rather more than they do”, I shall file this away for future reference under the heading of ‘Sweeping Generalisation’ alongside your earlier pronouncements regarding KFC and cigarette smokers (post number 2).
– One shudders when imagining the absolute contempt and disdain you might possibly reserve for a nicotine addicted economist unfortunate enough to have a predilection for fried chicken !!

With respect, when it comes to making decisions regarding the competency of those who would present me with economic information and the validity of such, I trust that you will forgive me CHOOSING to grant greater credence to a Nobel Prize winning economist than to the Tory propaganda machine.

3. ‘EXCESSIVE – adjective: more than is necessary, normal or desirable’ (Oxford English Dictionary).

Patently, in light of the latest economic figures, evidence and opinion my use of the phrase ‘excessive cuts’ is entirely valid and justified. Furthermore, it is fallacious and/or disingenuous on your part to attempt to deny these ‘excessive cuts’ by alluding to ‘increasing government spending’ (genuine or otherwise) without mentioning that an increase in government spending – and therefore an increase in the deficit – is the inevitable consequence of the IDEOLOGICAL CHOICE that has been taken by the Tory led government to inflict these ‘excessive cuts’ upon our public services, our society and our Nation.

4. I am not in the least concerned by your use of a pseudonym, to each his own. The ‘REAL NAME’ reference in my previous post was intended as a light-hearted cryptic joke (ie: my posts feature a recognisable name ergo they will be easily ‘identified’ as providing the most convincing argument – geddit ?!)

5. To say that the “IMF have come out supporting Government deficit reduction policy”, is to completely gloss over the concerns raised by that organisation which has – YET AGAIN – revised down the growth forecast for 2011. (Damned by faint praise, indeed !!)

And anyway, surely you are not placing your faith in the pronouncements of the IMF ? After all, are you not the very man who said previously in the same post, (***)”I don’t hold much store by ANY economists and, “I think they claim to understand rather more than they do” !?!?

Rather reminds me of that old saying: ’Give them enough rope… ‘

In closing, I should like to return briefly to the subject of ‘pseudonyms’. In an earlier post (number 21) I made light-hearted reference to ‘Tory propagandists regularly using the comments facility in an attempt to disseminate misinformation’. I closed that post by, half-jokingly, proffering the following information:

‘So, for the benefit of those who may be finding it a little difficult to identify these interlopers, here is another useful little pointer: the majority of these Tory self-aggrandising pseudo-intellectuals perceive themselves to be entirely imperceptible as a consequence of their ingenious ploy (which was gleaned directly from the pages of, ‘The Wizard Prang Book Of How To Be A Spy For Boys !’) – they use a ‘pseudonym’ – Genius !!’

Rather reminds me of another couple of old sayings: ‘If the shoe fits… ‘ and, ‘There’s many a true word spoken in jest !!’

4) You seem very hung up by my posting as a pseudonym – my real name is really rather common – there are many who share my name in the world just like there are probably many John Jackson’s – I dont think posting under my real name would advance the arguements either way or help you to identify me. Perhaps we should all post under our NI numbers?
5) Looks like IMF have come out supporting Government deficit reduction policy

Try again 🙂

Unfortunately, as you fail to present any ‘facts’ within the content of your post (number 31), I shall instead attempt to address the points which you raise.
However, in advance of my so doing please allow me to inform you – purely for the purpose of reference – that although I am a Democratic Socialist; I am neither a fanatical nor tribal ‘My Party, right or wrong’ (to paraphrase: Stephen Decatur) advocate of ANY political party.

You are indeed correct to state that Alistair Darling, and the previous Labour administration, did not outline exactly where the cuts which he claimed he would have to impose were likely to fall; however, as that particular government was voted out of office in May 2010, we can only speculate as to which areas of public spending would most likely have been affected, and by how much.
However, ‘THE FACT’ (which you have conveniently chosen to ignore) is that the present Tory led administration has CHOSEN to cut much deeper and much
faster than even it originally informed us would be ‘necessary’ (??!!).

Another ‘FACT’ which you may – or, if you are a member of this Tory led cohort of economic incompetents, ‘may not’ – care to acknowledge is this: within the last fortnight the Tory led government has been warned by the ‘Office for Economic Co-operation and Development’ (hardly a hot-bed of left-wing reactionaries !) about the pace of the cuts.
Furthermore, just yesterday, 5th June 2011, Mr Osborne was told by a group of Britain’s leading economists that he needs to find a plan ‘B’, and in the words of one of that number: “you can’t really achieve your deficit reduction plans unless you really cause even more damage to the economy” – which explains precisely why, as you point out in your post, “government expenditure would be higher in 2011 than it was in 2010” !
Mr Osborne’s critics also included the former chief economist at the Cabinet Office Jonathan Portes, who is now director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. In a letter to the Sunday Times, Mr Portes wrote: “You do not gain credibility by sticking to a strategy that is not working.”
Of course these concerns are just the latest in a series of warnings that have been voiced by numerous internationally renowned and respected economists not least among which is the 2008 Nobel prize winner for economics, Paul Krugman.

So, whilst it may indeed be “self evident” to your good-self that “the cuts need to be deeper and faster” – as indeed it is to the economic incompetents in this Tory led government who are clearly intent on IDEOLOGICALLY MOTIVATED economic vandalism – I am afraid that your opinion is completely at odds with INFORMED, RATIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING.

A ‘meme’ ? No, This Tory led government has attempted to inculcate a fallacious deception into the national psyche in order that it may, if not glean support, then at least minimise opposition for it’s entirely IDEOLOGICALLY driven policy of excessive cuts.

And with regard to the matter of ‘hyperbole’ and ‘facts’, I will let others decide who has presented facts in support of their argument and who is reliant alone merely upon subjective opinion. I feel confident that any informed, unbiased judge will easily identify the REAL NAME of the proponent of the most convincing, comprehensive and factually supported argument.

There is not such a huge difference in total between the government cuts and those that Darling claimed he would have to impose – the big difference is that Labour never properly explained where their cuts would fall and so can opportunistically declare that wherever the government proposes cuts they would not be making them there – perhaps the Official Opposition should be renamed the Official Opportunism.

The meme of these savage cuts is being fostered by the Tories as well as Labour both of whom need to demonstrate that they are very different to each other in order to justify their own existance. This deceit is compounded by the rampant bias of the BBC (and some other media) who have been bewailing the pain of the savage cuts from the day after the election – long before any impact could really resulted.

To me it is self evident that the cuts need to be deeper and faster (I may be mistaken but I read somewhere that government expenditure would be higher in 2011 than it was in 2010).

I would rather my taxes were going to fund schools and hospitals than servicing the massive debt we have built up – partly but not entirely as a result of Brown’s failure as Chancellor & PM

Ah yes, the mythical ‘Money Tree’ – personally, I imagine it standing somewhere in the leafy avenue that links ‘El Dorado’ to the lost city of ‘Atlantis’ !
But allow me to crave your indulgence for a moment and ask you to imagine that I have in fact located this arborescent, pecuniary miracle. Surely, this is the panacea for all of the World’s problems – or is it ?
Do I share my discovery with the rest of humanity or merely take that which I require to enhance the lives of those closest to me ?
If I am to share this gift (?) with the rest of humanity, should I set pre-conditions with regard to it’s use ?
In the event that I do indeed distribute the fruits of ‘The Tree’, how can I be sure that certain recipients will not merely use their share to purchase armaments so as to secure the source and plunder the remainder by force ?
And what if the distribution of this gift (?) should ultimately lead to the complete shutdown of society in the event an enormous global party were to ensue ?!
Maybe then I should just entrust it to a bank ? (“Hang on a minute, we tried that, remember ?”) Sorry, stupid idea !!
Patently, I have a CHOICE to make – and that is precisely where we stand in this very debate.

The unlimited supply of money in and of itself does not provide a single resolution to a single problem; however, obviously, the way in which the financial resources of a nation are allocated and utilised – and remember, we live in the fifth richest nation on earth – is absolutely fundamental to the well-being of that country, it’s society and it’s individual citizens.

Currently, this Conservative led Government has made a CHOICE to inflict massive cuts upon on our public services which are based entirely upon IDEOLOGICAL DOGMA.
Despite warnings from a litany of highly respected international economists that this policy of cuts is ‘too much, too soon’ and that it will harm our fragile economy – and recent economic figures clearly support that assertion – a deliberate, opportunistic CHOICE to shrink the size of the state has been made.

Let us then set-aside any other possible consequences of this ECONOMIC VANDALISM and examine the likely effects of this decision in just one area – the issue pertinent to this debate: children and the Tory policy of charging them to play in PUBLIC parks.

There is a raft of evidence which clearly suggests that money invested in early years play and education leads to a reduction in teenage crime, teenage pregnancy and teenage drug-abuse. In the USA, a long term study carried out over a ten year period evaluating the effect of additional funding for early years play and education concluded that for every dollar spent, ten dollars was subsequently saved as a consequence of the associated reduction in juvenile crime. (I am afraid that I am unable to recall which state carried out this research but I do recollect that it began with the letter ’M’ – “sorry“).

Be under no illusion, should we CHOOSE to allow and endorse this pernicious policy of social exclusion then in the not too distant future many of the forlorn little faces peering IN through the bars of the ‘off-limits’ play areas will be bigger forlorn faces peering OUT through the bars of a young offenders institute !

If we as a society make the CHOICE that it is acceptable to socially exclude children by virtue of deliberately imposing economic sanctions upon them then not only are we incredibly short-sighted, we are also little better than fascists.

Our future is in our hands, and also in OUR PUBLIC parks.

I apologise for the length of this post, but it concerns an issue far too important for a simple glib response.

And suffered their second worst defeat in history.

I mention being positive because negative campaigning has been shown not to work time and again yet Labour seem unable to learn from their mistakes and just keep repeating the same hypocritical nonsense time and again.

Labour will not get elected by this type of action – the polls show Miliband is a disaster and not changing their approach will result in further election losses. What is even worse than Labour’s hypocrisy and outright deceit in blogs like this fine one, is that the activists actually seem unable to even see what is wrong. Take this reply I gave earlier to BenM, a rude Labour activist:

“What worries me is that you seem quite happy to accept the very criticisms I mention without wanting an honest political party that represents the demographic it claims it supports.

Why don’t you want a positive Labour Party BenM because it’s pretty clear you don’t….”

What is very obvious is that your re-building hasn’t even started yet and without a leader the public can vote for it will be a long long time I fear…

Now I’ve made the first move perhaps you could tell me the location of the ‘magic money tree’ – the left believe in it as does my wife but for me to truely believe I need to see evidence.

Unlike your good-self, I am a relative newcomer to this site and it’s forums. However, in the admittedly short period of time that I have spent perusing articles and the associated comments I have been surprised by the number of right-wing ‘hijackers’.

Whilst I have, of course, encountered the usual, lazy, nonsensical Tory propaganda regarding the last governments culpability for the global financial meltdown (“Yawn”), I have also noted numerous – possibly very subtle – comments that completely ignore the subject matter of the relevant article but appear instead designed to undermine confidence in the Labour Party’s process of re-building.

One such example of this possible subterfuge could be: “Can anyone be positive about Labour at all here? The polls now put them neck and neck with the Tories. Miliband is a dead man walking (ask any member of the PLP) and they need all the help they can get…”

Frankly, I am unsure – what do you think ?

With regard to your question about “smearing by the Labour Party”, I would hope with the demise of ‘New’ Labour (aka: New Tory) Campbell and Mandelson that there would be considerably less.