MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Seems people love debt in this country - the cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.
Yeah, they get into loads of debt to buy plasma screen tellies etc then blame Gordon Brown it seems.
the cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.
Which is why the housing market is so vastly over-inflated. Which is why people are on such huge binding mortgages. Which is what the banks love. People in debt = people easier to control....
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Quite right, so why is the chinless **** repeating what hasn't worked before and isn't going to work now pray tell?
People in debt = people easier to control....
Until more of them become thieves or start rioting anyway.
aracer - yes it is. Many more unemployed in 1997 than now if you count the numbers in the same way. Simple fact.
stoner - I do understand your point - I simply don't agree anbout how serious it is. Look a debt ratios for competitor countries. its easily affordable - and certainly better to do so from a growing than a shrinking economy. Labour had the economy growing again, the condems will soon have it shrinking again. this is a deliberate ploy.
Most of the service improvements have been funded from growth. simple numbers. Some from debt. Thats why i said mainly.
i think thats the point GBs biggest failure was embracing the thatcherite business model entirely- privatisation all the way to the benefit of the the few at the detriment of the many, turning us into a finacial services economy
the condems offer nothing different in this respect just making PR spin bullsh!t out of a tabloid pleasing publicity stunt and looking forward to handing their private sector chums even more of our services/utilities to rape and pillage
Labour had the economy growing again
It was growing before they took over right?
aracer - yes it is.
Did you check my link TJ? See the graph? Where's the discontinuity where they changed the way they count the numbers?
How exactly did Gordon Brown put the country into massive personal debt then? I'd love to hear this.
OK, perhaps a slight exaggeration there, but he did loosen regulation even further than the Tories allowing the banks to take greater risks (check his Mansion House speeches, in one of which he openly encourages the banks to take greater risks) and introduce 100%, 125% mortgages, not to mention all the Credit Default Swap etc garbage.
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal became rife so people could take money out of their homes like it was a cash machine and blow the money on plasmas, new cars, and holidays. All the time their house was increasing in value it didn't matter, problem is houses prices can't go up 10% per year if wages aren't going up too. In real terms I think most people have actually seen wages decline over the last 10+ years, the only reason it wasn't that obvious was because you could get cheap credit to cover the shortfall.
When the housing market started cooling off in ~2004/5 he switched the inflation indexes and dropped the base rates to get the bubble going again. Oddly enough just before an election was due!
Are you seriously telling me he played no part in any of this? Admittedly he didn't put a gun to peoples heads and make them borrow more money than they can ever hope to repay (in some cases), but he put the opportunity in front of them and introduced huge moral hazard by bailing out the banks and overstretched borrowers.
Our economy has become one based on financial services and selling overpriced houses to each other. The banks are technically insolvent and house prices can't keep going up, what now?
We need to generate real wealth to get out of this hole.
Berm Bandit - Member
Quite right, so why is the chinless **** repeating what hasn't worked before and isn't going to work now pray tell?
I'm not sure of the question? What is he repeating? Austerity measures? I don't know but can only guess that they think we can't borrow any more money.
How are you measuring what works? Presumably you're saying you want to see the nation return to prosperity, or stability at least? I'm not being funny, just don't really understand what you're asking.
Tony - got to take issue with you there. CDSs can't really be put at Gordons door. They are a perfectly useful global concept that are taken advantage of across the world.
There's a certain kind of automaton Labour voter that just won't accept the trouble the economy is in and refuses to face up to the fact that we have massively overspent, for years.
I can only assume they're either landed aristocracy with substantial private incomes or third generation lifestyle welfare recipients. I just cannot see how any thinking person from the remaining 95% of society would continue to swallow this pityful New Labour regime apologist bullshit.
Useful idiots.
[i]How are you measuring what works? Presumably you're saying you want to see the nation return to prosperity, or stability at least? I'm not being funny, just don't really understand what you're asking. [/i]
hes not fixing the root of the problem, it wasnt gb that wiped 70bn off our pension funds in one day it was the markets we are just as exposed to them now as we ever were and 'the bankers tax' which aims to collect a paltry 4bn is pointless really
whether we are in debt or solvent when the next crash comes we will be just as buggered economically but a few more of cameron/cleggs buddies will have made a killing off privatised utilities/ services in the meantime
Comparing levels of debt as a % of GDP between different countries is a not very easy as different countries are funding different things. For instance, in the Netherlands Dutch Civil Service Pensions are not funded from future government expenditure but by a separate pension fund, ABP, which is one of the biggest in the world. In other countries, such as France and Germany, there are still substantial state industries that need funding and so the debt required to fund this will also on the government balance sheet. Likewise, PFI will understate UK government debt because new hospitals and schools have been funded off balance sheet. Debt has not disappeared as a result of PFI, it has been replaced by ongoing contractual expenditure obligations which have not been capitalised in the country's accounts. For all these reasons, commentators therefore generally look at countries' cashflows or their budget deficit when doing international comparisons and their trends. Hence the validity of Stonor's point.
It is untrue to save that the Tories' austerity programme is not being followed elsewhere, the Germans, the French and, to a even greater extent the Spanish, are embarking on very significant cuts in public expenditure and it is very much the US versus Europe on this, not just the UK.
Stoner - MemberTony - got to take issue with you there. CDSs can't really be put at Gordons door. They are a perfectly useful global concept that are taken advantage of across the world.
Fair point I'll stand corrected. Without totally derailing the thread though surely they're a part of the problem (along with Alt-A, Option ARM etc) as they allowed the reselling of sub-prime debt without the purchaser really knowing what they were buying? This just encouraged more sub-prime lending as the risk could be placed elsewhere?
kimbers - Memberhes not fixing the root of the problem, it wasnt gb that wiped 70bn off our pension funds in one day it was the markets we are just as exposed to them now as we ever were and 'the bankers tax' which aims to collect a paltry 4bn is pointless really
whether we are in debt or solvent when the next crash comes we will be just as buggered economically but a few more of cameron/cleggs buddies will have made a killing off privatised utilities/ services in the meantime
Can't argue with that but I do find it odd that people tend to take the age old stance that the Tories, and by association the LibDems also, are the only ones in the pockets of the rich and powerful. The New Labour experiment did a very good job of chumming up with them too.
whether we are in debt or solvent when the next crash comes we will be just as buggered economically
You think so? So if our debt was 10% lower you don't think the next 5 years might be £18bn a year less painful?
wasnt Gordons only mea culpa about not winding the banks in earlier? - the banks being ultimately the enablers of personal debt in an unrestrained environment.
Can't believe your that ignorant about politics and what the voter wants Stoner. Nulabs biggest mistake was following tory economic policies, it was a vote winner.
It is untrue to save that the Tories' austerity programme is not being followed elsewhere, the Germans, the French and, to a even greater extent the Spanish, are embarking on very significant cuts in public expenditure and it is very much the US versus Europe on this, not just the UK.
Other countries may be cutting back, but will more than likely restore thoses services/benefits when finances permit. What you are getting from Cameron is "the cuts will be permanent", which means they are cutting beyond what is necessary to get the deficit under control.
So if not enough volunteers can be found to run services under "big society", those services die. I somehow can't see the good folk of middle England flocking to run a bus route or a library now...do you?
While all the rumours about how much is being cut from state budgets abound, I would suspect worse case scenario is going to happen. Which means a wave of the oh so successful privatisation even to parts of the NHS where they can get away with it.
If you look at what Gideon has been saying about Trident being funded by the defence budget than it's pretty clear what the programme is all about. The defence budget cannot afford Trident without losing a massive amount of the armed services. But, having nuclear weapons is all about maintaining a seat on the top table of world powers, which buys you political and most importantly [u]economic[/u] power. So to hell with the rest of the armed forces.
The only reason why the NHS is being sort of spared is it's sacred to middle England voters.
And come election time a lovely tax cut will magically land on Middle Englands doorstep.
bravohotel9er - MemberThere's a certain kind of automaton Labour voter that just won't accept the trouble the economy is in and refuses to face up to the fact that we have massively overspent, for years.
I can only assume they're either landed aristocracy with substantial private incomes or third generation lifestyle welfare recipients. I just cannot see how any thinking person from the remaining 95% of society would continue to swallow this pityful New Labour regime apologist bullshit.
Useful idiots.
What utter drivel my son.
Its about world view, priorities and the sort of world we want. I don't even vote labour very often.
We can easily afford the current level of public sector and services and more. Many countries do. Again - simple fact.
You may want to pay less tax and beggar your neighbour. I don't. I want a fair society without poverty. Where everyone has access to quality healthcare and education.
Sorry - you ignorant ideas show you for the selfish clown you are.
At least attempt to make some sort of logical coherent case
Since you're back, TJ, no comment on my proof that you're wrong about unemployment?
Not seen the Tories encouraging the thousands of people who are missing out on benefits to which they are legitimately entitled to take them up, which would improve the lives of many families in the most vulnerable situations.
And surely a significant slice of the country's debt (about £70bn) was bailing our banks out - yet still obscene bonuses are being paid out.
And Cameron making policy on the hoof - such as milk for kids - rather goes against his statement that everything is up for cuts.
With the current policies it is likely that the benefits budget will be increased massively as a whole new section of the population will be signing on.
Hmmmm
I give you half a point.
Unemployment has climbed to a similar level - having been far lower for most of the 13 yrs - however it is raw figures and does not show employment which is much higher now - ( more people on the island) so [i]as a % it is still lower now than in 97.[/i]
That graph does not take into account the differences in counting methods in 1997 not those 1979 - 1997 - so while the 1997 - 2010 comparision is reasonable the 1978 - 1997 figures are 30- 50% too low. by the same count.
Philby - that is the sad part -and tax take will go down as well so these cuts will not cut the deficit.
bravohotel9er - Member
We seem to have wasted some of the public purse educating you sorry
So you're admitting that "There were more unemployed at the end of the tory years than there are now" is untrue?Hmmmm
I give you half a point.
If you're going to describe 2.435 million as a similar level to <2.1 million (over 15% lower), then yes.Unemployment has climbed to a similar level
Wrong again - you really should try reading the article I linked. "While the latest data shows that the jobless rate, under International Labour Organisation (ILO) rules, rose to 7.8% in the three months to June - the highest rate since the final quarter of 1996" - that would tend to suggest the rate (measured in the same way) is higher now than at any point in 1997!so as a % it is still lower now than in 97.
As I said before, if the counting method has changed somewhere, show me the discontinuity in the graph.That graph does not take into account the differences in counting methods in 1997 not those 1979 - 1997 - so while the 1997 - 2010 comparision is reasonable the 1978 - 1997 figures are 30- 50% too low. by the same count.
#
Junkyard - Memberbravohotel9er - Member
We seem to have wasted some of the public purse educating you sorry
Posted 4 hours ago # Report-Post
No, the money was wasted on you.
I have no credit cards, no hire purchase agreements or other loans, have paid off my student debt and have plenty of money in the bank. I'm a responsible member of society, enjoy the reckoning! :p
I can only assume
Because you have no real experience or knowledge to draw from? Just assumption.
Now isn't that a surprise...
I have no credit cards, no hire purchase agreements or other loans, have paid off my student debt and have plenty of money in the bank. I'm a responsible member of society, enjoy the reckoning! :p
Thats great but has nothing to do with your lack of intellect or reasoning.
Surely looking in the long run though pin pointing benefit cheats will reduce the government debt. Yes tax avoidance has to be dealt with but you can't do everything at once.
I think this is a case of the Labour supporters and the Torrie supporters. If GB had done the same thing would the Labour supporters be moaning about it?
As above I am pleased you have no debts* but what exactly is the relationshp between this an your inability to think/reason properly?
* You seem to be implying that I do have some huge personal debt your mystic meg powers are as poor as your logical powers
I dont think anyone is saying that benefits cheats are ace and should not be targetted but we should erhpas also go after the mega rich as ther eis mor emoney to be gained closing loopholes in tax evasion than in benefit cheats. Targets and priority selection of Dave is to constantly attack weak rather than the rich. See also VAT rise and current budget as further exaples. Yes we would we have principles and who does this is not the issue. It is too simple to just critcise those who oppose this as just Labur supporters. Perhpa syou cold reason with "us" intead?
MS - MemberIf GB had done the same thing would the Labour supporters be moaning about it?
he did.
Its the methods that Cameron wants to use - using a private company for a state function and the blurring of the lines. Experian collect data on peoples credit usage for marketing - to then use this data in a quasi judicial investigation without oversight from the courts is very wrong
MS - MemberSurely looking in the long run though pin pointing benefit cheats will reduce the government debt. Yes tax avoidance has to be dealt with but you can't do everything at once.
Benefit fraud is tiny amounts of money in comparison to tax fraud.
Surely looking in the long run though pin pointing benefit cheats will reduce the government debt.
As has already been said; the actual amount 'stolen' by cheats is a relatively small amount, far far less I'd imagine than what's 'lost' by tax-cheating. This is just Cameron trying to look tough, and using emotive issues to gain support for what will surely be a whole swathe of devastating cuts to public services and benefit payments. No talk of actually trying to get to the root of poverty, and the reasons why so many are on benefits, is there? No, because let's be honest, the Tories don't really care about the Underclass. And neither do many STWers, it seems.
Britain is no longer divided simply by class ie Working, Middle etc; there is now 'Decent hardworking taxpayers' and 'Feral benefit scrounging scum'. And underclass has been created to give others the illusion they are more worthy citizens. Someone to hate. The Goldstein of today. Hate, and ye shall be rewarded.
5 minute Hate, anyone?
I blame Disabled Lesbian Asylum-Seeking Foreigners, myself. All their fault. What's this country come to, thin end of the wedge, decent citizens forced out of their own homes, knife crime, etc.
Etc.
Etc....
>Its the methods that Cameron wants to use - using a private company for a state function and the blurring of the lines.
An approach initiated by the previous gov.
I fully agree that tax avoidance and evasion should also be targeted but am willing to give the coalition the benefit of the doubt (for now). To use a nasty American euphemism, I would think that benefit fraud could be seen as 'low hanging fruit' and could be dealt with more quickly than the legislation required to deal with the broader tax issue. Plus everyone can commit benefit fraud if it came to it, how many of us earn enough money to avoid tax on the scales discussed here (unless you're also talking about seasonal cash in hand type work)? By dealing with this you remove some of the moral issues the voting public so enjoy arguing over.
I understand peoples feelings on getting to the root of poverty etc, but the desire to stop the family down the road receiving more money than you can earn by working a 40+ hour week doesn't seem unreasonable to me. These are the cases I want to be targeted, in no way do I want those who need benefits to have them removed but why should everyone be entitled to free money? I have a young family and struggle to make ends meet sometimes, while I'm happy to help people out I resent paying so much tax to allow someone to opt out of work in the long term. I was brought up to believe that if you can't afford something you save for it or don't have it, is it so wrong to expect others to behave in the same way? Does that make me a bad person? And no I don't mean people shouldn't receive free health care, I'm talking money for cigarettes, booze, plasmas, etc.
Outsourcing the benefit testing, well if they get paid per case then as long as strict controls and criteria are put in place to ensure they don't fiddle the system (I know, I know) then surely this would be more cost effective than paying a government departments salaries and being liable for those much vaunted public sector pensions? Before I get flamed by the public sector on here, I'm not against you I just don't like waste (especially when it costs me money) in either public or private sector.
To the point about the VAT rise, I'd rather VAT rose than my personal tax. VAT is for the most part a discretionary tax, if I don't want to pay it I won't buy something. Increasing the tax I pay on my wages is not optional. This works right across the board, rich and poor. The most important purchases I make are food and clothes for my kids which are VAT exempt. We pay enough taxes through stealth (petrol for example), if there's a way to avoid paying more I'm all for it but unfortunately I don't earn enough to warrant paying an accountant to help me do that!
As for the Tory/Labour bias we always seem to drop back to I'll proclaim myself a Tory supporter, there it's out there. I don't necessarily support all of their policies but I believe their ideology fits best with mine. This doesn't mean I'm rich (far from it) or hate Labour (although I do dislike a lot of what they've done over the last 12 years or so). What I do resent is the way people drop into Tory boy/Labour scum type assumptions and insults in the way a lot of perfectly reasonable discussions degenerate into a rich/poor, North/South divide, etc, type of slanging match. Surely we can all (most) think rationally enough to discuss this stuff in an adult manner?!
tony - you new here ?
😉
Yep, newbie naivety shining through? 🙂
[i]but the desire to stop the family down the road receiving more money than you can earn by working a 40+ hour week doesn't seem unreasonable to me.[/i]
Those people rarely exist outside the pages of the Daily Wail really. Living off benefits isn't really living the dream, y'know?
VAT increases disproportionally hit the poor. So a VAT increase for them could be the difference between eating, or having the heating on in the winter...
Oh, and what people spend their money on is really none of your business, plasma, fags or anything...sorry.
I understand peoples feelings on getting to the root of poverty etc, but the desire to stop the family down the road receiving more money than you can earn by working a 40+ hour week doesn't seem unreasonable to me
I know it makes me sick to see the billions of profit companies make whilst denying their staff a living wage. We really should legislate against this and increase the minimum wage to get them out of this trap. I mean when you can "earn" more by being given the bare minimum required to keep you and your children out of poverty than you can from working then something has gone wrong with trickle down capitalism.
nickc - Member
Oh, and what people spend their money on is really none of your business, plasma, fags or anything...sorry.
"Their" money comes from the government, part of which is taken directly from my (and your) wage packet. I think that entitles me to feel somewhat peeved if it's spent on luxuries don't you?
And yes, I can speak from direct experience - my sister in law is on benefits, she's not a benefit cheat but she knows how to work the system and is better off there. She has Sky TV, smokes 20 fags a day, gets a new mobile phone every 6 months, and has just gone to Spain on a 4 week holiday with her daughter.
Her Dad got up at 4am to drive them to the airport (60 miles each way) as she can't afford the train or airport parking, and he'll be collecting her when they get back. We (her family) pay her petrol money so she can come and visit (20 mile drive) because she apparently can't afford it.
I work over 40 hours per week and we just had a week in Wales for our holiday, next year we probably won't have one. No doubt you think I'm bitter, I'm just pointing out a situation that is probably repeated across the country.
Surely we can all (most) think rationally enough to discuss this stuff in an adult manner?!
What a strange and utterly bizarre concept...
Can someone explain to me how we are going to pay for the public sector workers who's jobs are cut, will stop paying taxes/services start claiming benefits?
Sorry if I'm being thick here, I know there are alot of spongers working for the Civil Service, but I cannot see where the extra revenue will come from to pay them on benefits.
Having taken a moment to reflect, I am actually quite bitter but only in that we holidayed 20 minutes from Coed y Brenin and I wasn't allowed to take my bike.
jimster - where do you think the money comes from to pay public sector salaries? From the private sector as far as I can see (or borrowing).
The public sector pays tax, but the salary they're paying tax on comes from tax taken from the private sector. By it's very nature the public sector isn't a wealth generating sector. Do you pay someone £30k per year to take back £5k in tax or pay them £10k per year in benefits? As harsh as it seems it's got to be more cost effective providing services aren't affected too dramatically. Numbers are a guess but the point remains.
LOL, I sort of know what you mean, I run my own company, my holiday is going to be a week in the Lakes...
It's not going to rain, it's not going to rain...If I say it enough it'll be true...
Lakes, nice. Haven't been for a long time, will you get the chance to do any riding?
Her Dad got up at 4am to drive them to the airport (60 miles each way) as she can't afford the train or airport parking, and he'll be collecting her when they get back. We (her family) pay her petrol money so she can come and visit (20 mile drive) because she apparently can't afford it.I work over 40 hours per week and we just had a week in Wales for our holiday, next year we probably won't have one. No doubt you think I'm bitter, I'm just pointing out a situation that is probably repeated across the country.
That does sound annoying. Although looking at the cost of cheap food included European sunshine holidays in our high street travel agents, I reckon it is often way cheaper than a UK holiday if you're not fussy about exactly what holiday you go on.
Joe
By it's very nature the public sector isn't a wealth generating sector.
Are you sure? Isn't that a bit dumb if you think about it?
Ever heard of Universities? They make a lot of stuff y'know, not to mention making it possible for a lot of companies to work. As an obvious example local to me, look at Rolls Royce Aerospace - they have tons of stuff done by and with universities, as well as employing tons of engineering graduates. They wouldn't be able to 'generate any wealth' without UK universities.
Lots of other things probably generate wealth in less obvious ways - for example by mending the roads, people can drive around and deliver things; the NHS must have a massive benefit to companies compared to in the USA, where private companies have to pay for the equivalent services for their employees (at about twice the cost too ; schools mean that companies have literate employees; councils organise waste collection meaning that we're not all sick, so are able to work.
There may be some public sector work that is not even indirectly increasing the ability of people to generate wealth, but I'd be surprised if it is very much if you think about it for a minute.
Joe
As harsh as it seems it's got to be more cost effective providing services aren't affected too dramatically.
The trouble is the positions that are cut are the people who do the work, not the workshy managers who arrange training weekends in a hotel at the far end of the country at the cost to the country because it comes from a different "budget".
tony - the issues is that the bit of money that those people no longer have no longer gets spent on goods and services - so the people who provide those goods and services make less profit / go bust. Thus reducing tax take all round.
IIRC 70+ % of all public sector salaries gets immediately back into the economy.
Cutting public sector will be self defeating as the benefits bill rises and the tax take falls - thus the deficit will not be reduced. Adjustments can be made if your ideology insists they must be - but to do it so quickly and harshly will damage the economy immeasurably. No other country in the world is doing so much cutting for so little deficit. Double dip recession here we come - its economic illiteracy of the highest order. The lesson from previous recessions has not been learnt by the tories - of if it has they are going ahead with this very damaging course for purely ideological reasons.
A quick aside here, a couple of months ago everyone(the press) were citing the Canadian economy as the example to follow - in as much they reduced a huge deficit in a couple of years or so. A reporter from Canada was on the radio explaining who it happened, basically a new Govt came in, consulted with everyone and explained what was going to happen, huge cuts in spending, increase in taxes etc etc and things went to plan. However, Canada's biggest trading partner at the time was America who were in a boom period and they effectively thrived off that.
Who are our trading partners, and are they not in recession too?
jimster - Member
The trouble is the positions that are cut are the people who do the work, not the workshy managers who arrange training weekends in a hotel at the far end of the country at the cost to the country because it comes from a different "budget".
I agree totally.
TandemJeremy - Membertony - the issues is that the bit of money that those people no longer have no longer gets spent on goods and services - so the people who provide those goods and services make less profit / go bust. Thus reducing tax take all round.
But the money those people are no longer spending is provided indirectly by the very people that are relying on them to spend it?!
Tax take (income) goes down, but so does the salary bill (outgoings), so how does that make us worse off? I realise I'm taking a very simplistic view of things, but in hard times if you can't afford it you don't do it.
Either way we can't rely on consumerism alone, it's just a way to distribute the wealth that gets generated elsewhere, be that through producing stuff or providing services that people need. If a business is not viable then it should go bust, if the service that business provided was valid and useful then it's place will be taken by a more efficient and robust business. The job of the state should not be to support failed businesses, banks included.
I'm going to stop now because I'm confusing myself and need to actually do some work!
britain is leading the way in cutting its science budget, our director has warned us of up to 40% cuts
and complained bitterly that his peers in france and germany arent faced with the same funding issues, because everyone knows cutting R&D is a bad idea in a recession
and scrapping schemes like this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10912723
short term budget savings but long term damage toc ommunities
and as pointed out in the article proves the 'big society' was just empty politician words
. If a business is not viable then it should go bust, if the service that business provided was valid and useful then it's place will be taken by a more efficient and robust business.
Your faith in market forces is touching, but is something only valid and useful if it's possible to make a healthy profit out of it? Personally I don't want to live in a society where every single aspect of life is about wringing profit out of it. And no I am not a state employee btw.
And re the Labour-Tory thing - yes Labour were guilty of similar tabloid-pandering rhetoric, but the Tories seem to have even fewer reservations about picking on the weak and powerless.
BTW the dreaded 'double-dip' seems to happening right about now - well done Dave...
Tony - to oversimplify - the profits by the local shopkeeper drops to perhaps to the point where he is no longer profitable thus he ends up on the dole paying no taxes as well. certainly the taxes he pays are reduced as well
the other point tony is that these are no t hard times and we can easily afford it. Its an idealogical choice
jimster - Member
Can someone explain to me how we are going to pay for the public sector workers who's jobs are cut, will stop paying taxes/services start claiming benefits?
Haven't you heard? We're going to unprecedented economic growth in the private sector, Osborne said so.
The public sector pays tax, but the salary they're paying tax on comes from tax taken from the private sector. By it's very nature the public sector isn't a wealth generating sector. Do you pay someone £30k per year to take back £5k in tax or pay them £10k per year in benefits? As harsh as it seems it's got to be more cost effective providing services aren't affected too dramatically. Numbers are a guess but the point remains.
WTF!?
Another example of how the cuts will actually harm private enterprise and cost more money in the long run:
I'm not saying everything should be subject to market forces, of course I don't beleive that essential public services such as the NHS, binmen, etc should be driven by profit. I do think it would be nice to know that the money we pay in taxes to finance these services is spent wisely though.grum - Member
Your faith in market forces is touching, but is something only valid and useful if it's possible to make a healthy profit out of it?
Personally I don't want to live in a society where every single aspect of life is about wringing profit out of it.
Me neither, ortherwise I'd move to America.
BTW the dreaded 'double-dip' seems to happening right about now - well done Dave...
In Dave and George's words "We're in this together"
A bit like Vanessa Feltz reassuring an anorexic!!
Haven't you heard? We're going to unprecedented economic growth in the private sector, Osborne said so.
As I asked later
Who are our trading partners, and are they not in recession too?
more to the point wtf do we have to trade?
canada made it out of its slump because of its huge wealth in natural resources and growing manufacturing base
we have neither
BTW the dreaded 'double-dip' seems to happening right about now - well done Dave...
Hmmm, I think maybe it's too early for this lot to have had that kind of impact - it was gonna happen whatever.
Trading partners jimster? Well the rest of the developed world of course. You know, all those countries coming out of a recession like us and trying to rebalance their economies like us, and hoping export growth will fund the return to, and then sustain growth, like us.
tiger_roach - Member
Hmmm, I think maybe it's too early for this lot to have had that kind of impact - it was gonna happen whatever.
I wouldn't be so sure. Cancelling a huge schools building program is going to have an immediate impact on the construction sector. Plus the markets function - in part - on confidence and future expectations, the new govt has a great influence over that. Impeding job losses in the public sector will impact people's consumption decisions. Cuts to public sector spending will have similar effects for private sector contractors who rely on public monies for work.
Tiger - nope - its two things are impacting on the figures atm - both teh condems fault.
VAT rise and confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10934302
Hmmm, I think maybe it's too early for this lot to have had that kind of impact - it was gonna happen whatever.
Well, except that lack of consumer confidence due to massive job cuts is stalling spending and the housing market etc etc
'm not saying everything should be subject to market forces, of course I don't beleive that essential public services such as the NHS, binmen, etc should be driven by profit.
I'm not sure that your chosen political party agrees with you there.
I do think it would be nice to know that the money we pay in taxes to finance these services is spent wisely though.
Agreed - I just have absolutely zero confidence that Cameron etc actually give even the slightest shit about it, let alone are capable of sorting it out.
kimbers - Membermore to the point wtf do we have to trade?
canada made it out of its slump because of its huge wealth in natural resources and growing manufacturing base
we have neither
How's the drilling going off the Falklands? Did they hit oil yet? It's all gone quiet.
Fingers crossed that could solve all of our problems - lots of lovely oil money to the rescue, and another war with Argentina to boot! There's nothing like a good war (that we might be able to win) to divert everyones attention.
CaptJon / TJ
Yep but it's still too early to see the impact in the stats; house prices are starting to fall it seems but that ain't because of the new Gov't.
the inside buzz in the oil industry is that any oil thats in the falklands is very hard to reach and theres not very much of it, theyve been looking there for at least the last 20 years and not found any so far
it says more about the lack of oil left in the north sea that they are willing to send rigs from there to the bottom of the world
The Bank said the main factor behind its prediction that inflation would remain higher than previously forecast was the government's decision to raise VAT to 20% from 17.5% at the start of next year.
house prices are starting to fall it seems but that ain't because of the new Gov't.
Why is it then genius? How can you be so sure.
Nationwide's monthly consumer confidence index released today also shows households are growing more wary about making major purchases, are more cautious about the housing market and increasingly believe their income will fall over coming months.In its first report since George Osborne presented his emergency budget in late June, Nationwide said its headline consumer confidence index for July stood at 56, down sharply from 63 in June and the lowest since the depths of the recession in April 2009. It has now fallen for three straight months.
The expectations index – which reflects how people feel about the economy, labour market and household income over the next six months – was also the weakest since April last year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/11/recession-unemployment-economy-government-cuts
Cuts to public sector spending will have similar effects for private sector contractors who rely on public monies for work.
Yeah, even if you can get them, you'd be mental to agree to a long term public sector contract now, with them cutting random stuff, as the link to the playground cuts above shows.
Joe
Hmmm, I think maybe it's too early for this lot to have had that kind of impact
Certainly having a huge impact in IT!
It's all just minor changes to the previous government's already announced policies really. No surprise, as you can't really change that much in a short time, despite all the breast beating that accompanies these announcements. Small changes to existing plans, big noises to seem to be doing far more.
grum - they will have an impact I'm sure but as house sales take months to go through the current stats don't reflect the most recent changes.
i think kelvin has a good point nulabs proposed cuts werent much different from the torries, if not as immediately drastic
its just that a lot of people were fooled by the great rupert murdoch -gordon is the devil- media hysteria whipped up pre-election to scare people into voting tory
The future is not necessarily as bleak as portrayed on here. First, the revised BofE forecast for growth of 2.5% for 2011 merely brings it into line with the government's own forecast at the time of the budget of 2.6%.
Second, exports are growing, despite the commonly held belief on here that this is impossible because we don't make anything. Exports grew 6.4% in the second quarter compared to the previous one and year on year growth was 15.5%.
What is interesting about the BofE growth forecast is actually the reporting of it. The BofE does not make a central growth forecast instead it publishes fan charts. It is from these that the media derive the numbers. Both the Guardian and the Telegraph have derived 3%, whilst the BBC has derived 2.5%. What does this say about the BBC spreading doom and gloom?
I have no doubt that Cameron will turn out to be a colossal twunt, however Brown was a colossal twunt as was Blair, as was Major.
However bad this current bunch turn out to be, I'll never quite get over the let down last bunch of barstewards turned out to be. For that reason I'll never, ever vote Labour again.