Labour now need to change their minds about deficit reduction
and talk up nationalisation

and profit confiscation

The glee in which these cuts are being made is sickening. The ghosts of Thatcher can hardly believe their luck.

Jane - The question is not whether or not to reduce the deficit, it is about whether there is an alternative way or timescale over which to do so. As to the argument that these projects were recently agreed, that is simply not true in every case, as some of these projects were analysed, planned and in some cases part delivered over several years although may have had government finance signed off only in the early part of this year. As to whether or not they were unfunded, I suggest that you wait to see the proposed spending for the coalition government for the next parliament, and what they will find money for. It is not a case of there being no money, as clearly there is still some, else the Conservatives would not be offering to radically change the education system by offering additional money to schools to become academies and cash to parents who don’t like what we have already so that they can set up their own schools. It is a case of there not being enough at the moment, but more importantly it is an ideological difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party as to how what money is generated in this country should be used, and in the current financial situation, what constitutes a price worth paying for our health services, education service and infrastructure, and what we can afford to do without. Listen carefully to Danny Alexander – understand the meaning of the words “this government’s priority”. The Conservative/LibDem government will try and reduce the deficit faster than the last government planned to do, a deficit which is larger than since the end of the 2nd World War. It took 60+ years to reduce that deficit, whilst state investment in rebuilding the country allowed the economy to grow again. And yet the coalition says we must do this in 4 years whilst not investing in the sort of projects which allowed us to progress last time.
As a business analyst, I find it breathtakingly short sighted to refuse a loan of 80m to Sheffield Forgemasters, not because it is not affordable, or because, if you look at the big picture, it would not represent good value for money for UK Plc, but because (and I quote Danny Alexander) “there will no subsidy for nuclear energy”. The true answer is that the loan has been axed for political expediency, and the need to have some of the LibDems policies on view, even at the expense of a Conservative commitment to nuclear energy. To meet the need to keep the coalition together the country must sacrifice potential long term growth which could have been provided through support for a company very well placed to meet the demands of a potential and growing world market. Since the banks would not lend, something the Conservative MPs are very quick to moan about, then the government is the lender of last resort, or the UK loses out to the overseas investors, industries and governments that will do so.

I just cannot understand cutting the Sheffield Forgemasters loan. It is a complete own goal. These are the kind of good quality jobs we need in this country.

Well I think Labour will have to tell us at some point what and when they would have cut. Until they do the coalition have an easy response to any criticism of specific cuts they make.
That said, the coalition have already misused the OBR forecast, giving us snippets in advance (how can it be independent if Osborne gets to see the report ahead of everyone else?). This forecast is based on the previous government's plans - which means the growth of 2.6% can't be assumed to happen if cuts are made further and faster or if taxes are increased. Is the idea that the OBR will produce another report after the emergency budget, including the budget measures?