What happens if the coalition breaks down?

What is happening here is the classic shock doctrine/disaster capitalism which is used to reshape the economy in the interests of private business, not the state.

Absolutely bang on the money there Lifer! Anyone who’s read the book can see Dave and co are following it letter for letter. Maximum exploitation of their “window of opportunity”.

To finish my point, confirmed by some on here. I have come across a lot of people who don’t understand the point of saying that half the population are of below average intellegence and find it to be shocking. What hope do you have if people don’t understand basic definitions.

I love the way my secret adversary now puts “More boring Ernie polemic” tags on threads in which my contributions are both short and minimal. I know that the intended purpose to wind me up, but it really does give a sense of smug satisfaction to know that someone is so rattled by my comments, but yet lacks both the tools and intellectual capacity to challenge me, that they have to resort to “attack by tags” !

😀

Look upon it as a ‘Tag of Honour’.

Lifer your post contradicts itself. Who provides the exports, growth, wealth and jobs we need? Yes by enlarge its private business and not the public sector.

This government seems very pro-business and pro-exports which can only be a good thing. Sustainable wealth is not created by borrowing more and more money. At least this government seems to understand this however unpopular it seems to be with lots of you on here.

Who provides the exports, growth, wealth and jobs we need?

Who farms/mines/produces the raw materials? Who works in the farms and factories? Who treats the workers when they get sick? Who teaches the workers’ children? Who cleans up after everyone?

Who provides the backbone of the actual industries and services the rich get wealthy from? Eh?

Or is it only the captains of industry and business that actually matter, or do any work?

Typical Tory shortsightedness- let’s just forget the working classes exist….

Elfin safety please explain how we will survive as just a nation of public servants? Sure we need a balance of both private and state but under the last government the balance has swung far too much in the favour of state and all the red tape that entails.

You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to people doing well for themselves. Successful business paying its tax is how we can afford to educate our children and provide the NHS we all care about so much. This stuff won’t pay for itself you know.

Well i’ve just reread the entire thread and i can’t see where Elfin says we should all be public servants. Perhaps you could point that bit out.

Successful business paying its tax is how we can afford to educate our children and provide the NHS we all care about so much.

But what makes a business successful. The execs yes but also the many people who work for that company. And is it really fair that the execs earn so much more than the workers they employ.

The issue of fairness has come up a few times in this thread and still no answer from the more right wing people. So a straightforward question –

Do you think it’s fair that some people can earn so much when there are many people struggling to make ends meets. Do you really believe that people at the higher end of the wage bracket actually “need” all that money.

High standard of education and a healthy workforce is very important to the private sector.

Why is it not fair for execs or directors to be paid a lot more than the workers?

It’s the directors that took the risk to set up the business in the first place and usually the directors that put in the hard work and long hours from day one?

Why should they not be rewarded?

Unbelievable!

Some directors take risks setting up businesses many don’t. They are appointed by their friends for favours given and received

You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to people doing well for themselves.

Oh here we go….

I do have an issue with obscene levels of wealth whilst others struggle to make ends meet, or go without what should be considered basic necessities. Ergo, a very small minority enjoying fabulous wealth, whilst others are denied adequate healthcare, housing and education etc through no fault of their own, let’s not forget, is something I am opposed to, yes. No-one needs multiple houses, loads of cars, etc etc. The fact that some people seem to feel they are entitled to such vulgar riches just serves to illustrate how greedy and selfish some people can be.

So, by your reckoning, ‘doing well for yourself’ is something that can only be measured in material wealth, then?

Herein lies the problem…. 🙄

Why is it not fair for execs or directors to be paid a lot more than the workers?

I have no issue with being paid for success, but this simply isn’t the case. The sky-rocketing rise in boardroom pay is utterly disproportionate to the results being achieved by these people. Productivity and profitability are not increasing yet their wages are – and at a staggering rate. This is due to the system of non-exec directors rubber-stamping each other mutually huge pay increases

Meanwhile the ‘rest of us’ have wages that are, at best, stagnant, and for most people, genuinely decreasing

Northern star – in a mixed economy fair reward is acceptable – however some just stick their nose in the trough and take no risk – look at the money being paid to the directors of the nationalised banks for a gret example. Waht risk are they taking? How can a remuneration of millions be justifiable?

Northern star – in a mixed economy fair reward is acceptable – however some just stick their nose in the trough and take no risk – look at the money being paid to the people in charge of the trade unions for a gret (sic) example. Waht (sic, again!) risk are they taking?

😉

No-one is saying they shouldn’t be ‘rewarded’. It’s the level of ‘reward’, in relation to how much others are ‘rewarded’, that people take issue with.

Why should a nurse, who saves someone’s life, not be ‘rewarded’ accordingly, for such a valuable job? I notice it’s questions like this that you fail to answer…

😉 and more 😉

Why should they not be rewarded?

No-one is saying they shouldn’t be ‘rewarded’. It’s the level of ‘reward’, in relation to how much others are ‘rewarded’, that people take issue with.

Why should a nurse, who saves someone’s life, not be ‘rewarded’ accordingly, for such a valuable job? I notice it’s questions like this that you fail to answer…

I think you find that the majority will have taken a big risk, sometimes putting their house, time, family and sanity on the line in the process.

Please don’t keep referring to a small minority or some odd examples to try and prove an argument.

Why should they not be rewarded?

Unbelievable!

Of course they should be rewarded and taking risk is a central component of Capitalism. No disagreement there.

But you still haven’t answered the question. How much money do you need. Do you think it is fair that many people in our society are struggling on a daily basis whilst others, IMO, earn enough to be able to pay more in tax and still lead a very comfortable life.

Is that really the sort of society you want to live in ?

CaptainFlashheart – Member

I have nothing of any real value to impart, yet I will attempt to make myself look clever by arrogantly picking up someone else because of their spelling mistakes.

No surprise there then Flashy. 🙄

Do you actually have anything intelligent to say, or is this a bit beyond you, as always?

Nice misquote there, Elf! 🙂

Nice misquote there, Elf!

Not at all. It’s the thought that was in your head. Unable to actually engage in intelligent debate, so you try to appear all superior to others. Bit pathetic don’t you think? Why not actually think up something of actual interest? Or are you unable to?

No, come on, NiceButDim; let’s hear what you’ve got to say, cos you’ve obviously got something to say, haven’t you?

Truth is, we know you lack the stones and the conviction to actually say owt really. Too scared of your views being shot down in flames?

Put your mouth where your money is, ToryBoy.

Oh, and here’s a 😉 for you.

you’ve obviously got something to say, haven’t you?

Afraid not.

Ah, thought not. No change there then.

Off back to your sad middle-aged man perving thread then. 😉

😆 You sound just like TJ…! 😀

Well, as TJ is clearly an intelligent, well-educated individual with a pretty open-minded view on life, I take that as a great compliment, thank you. 🙂

Nurses choose to be nurses and business leaders choose to be business leaders. You know the score before you enter the profession so why complain afterwards about who gets what? Whilst I do agree that there are a few highly publicised bankers etc who deserve the bad press they get, the majority of hard working euntrapraneurs should not have to suffer as a result and should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour as a result. How they choose to spend their money is their own business, be that buying a luxury yauht, or giving to charity.

Written in a rush so apologies for the bad spelling.

Somebody else want a go? I’m off to bang my head repeatedly against a wall, as it’ll be more productive…

How they choose to spend their money is their own business, be that buying a luxury yauht, or giving to charity.

So is it fair to say that you don’t really give a stuff about a fair society and really it’s everybody for themselves ?

Or have i misread it ?

Whilst I do agree that there are a few highly publicised bankers etc who deserve the bad press they get, the majority of hard working euntrapraneurs should not have to suffer as a result and should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour as a result. How they choose to spend their money is their own business, be that buying a luxury yauht, or giving to charity.

Or employing tax specialists to help them avoid paying the actual tax they owe.

You still haven’t convinced me (or even provided any evidence) that the cuts are working btw.

I read page 1 and then flicked to 4, and the discussion had moved on.
however, i fail to see why people show such blind faith in labour after the last few years, i just don’t get it.
tory cuts are approximately 19% of public spending, but didn’t labour say that they were planning in the region of 20%?!
painful, yes, but would have been painful no matter who got in.
and people having a pop at Dave C, but is Ed M so much better, a man of the people, more working class, more inspiring, a potentially great leader etc. not in my book, no better/different at all.
bring back charles kennedy! the campaign starts here – nowt wrong with a few pints now and again…

Mancjon,

Don’t be silly of course I believe in a society where everyone gets a fair chance and where the less fortunate are looked after. But I also believe in a society where those that choose to work hard and generate money and jobs for the UK get rewarded fairly. Otherwise where is the incentive for anyone to do well and work hard?

Simple answer isn’t there – flat tax

Everyone pays the same %age, from the bottom to the top – no allowances, no reductions, no payback – same %age for all, even the lowest paid contribute, nominally, to the services they consume, which means they value them and don’t waste them!

Fair Taxation for all

rich pay more than the poor (thats how percentages work!) administration costs cut to the bone, way of the future!

Lifer no one know whether the cuts will work, let alone me. All I know is that carrying on borrowing more and more like we have been the last 10 years under Labour is not an option. As with any problem it’s often best to tackle things head on and get it over and done with rather than tiptoe around the edges in a sort of non-commital way. For those that believe it will tip us into another recession then yes, possibly. But recessions don’t last forever and growth always follows a recession. Hopefully when the growth starts again this country will be leaner, meaner and keener as a result. Basic principles of any business really.

I think you find that the majority will have taken a big risk, sometimes putting their house, time, family and sanity on the line in the process.

If only those that succeed could do something to reflect their gratitude for the safety net of welfare/social housing/schooling/mental health facilities provided by the state that enabled them to take said risks. There’s surely something, but for the life of me i can’t think of it….

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Simple answer isn’t there – flat tax

One of the most stupid ideas from the far right.

Make the poor pay more and the rich pay less.

Northern star – the overwhelming evidence from history and the opinions of economists is that it won’t work. The evidence is that its not working and GDP falls and tax receipts fall

remember both the debt and the deficit are perfectly manageable and not high by the standards of comparator nations.

Yeah, woah betide the idea it might make paper pushing civil servants redundant, eh TJ? I’m sure your priorities aren’t even a little swayed by that element of the concept 🙄

its as if a million voices, all cried out in Unison, and were suddenly silenced

😉

Don’t be silly of course I believe in a society where everyone gets a fair chance and where the less fortunate are looked after.

I was genuinely interested in the answer, not trying to be silly.

Because i don’t disagree that effort should be rewarded although that does raise the issue of all those people who work very hard but in low paid menial jobs.

Where i struggle with your point of view is on the one hand you say it’s fine for someone to buy a luxury yacht and then on the other hand say you believe in a fair society where the less fortunate are looked after. Because the two things are often at odds with each other.

Many many people work very hard and still struggle to make ends meet. They do jobs that we all rely on to make our society work. But, as Elfin pointed out, often in these sorts of dicussions, they seem to be discounted by some of the more right wing people. And don’t forget, that although there are people who set their own businesses up etc.. there are just as many who gained their position through advantage, whether that be friends, education etc..

I don’t discount your views, it’s just that i struggle to see how you can allow parts of our society to become very well off while others suffer.

Elfinsafety
So, by your reckoning, ‘doing well for yourself’ is something that can only be measured in material wealth, then?

I totally agree but, in the fine stw tradition of arguing for the sake of it, doesn’t….

Elfinsafety
Why should a nurse, who saves someone’s life, not be ‘rewarded’ accordingly, for such a valuable job?

…..suggest that material wealth is the only reward ??

Problem seems to be one man’s enough is another’s too much, I don’t know ‘teh answer’ and I guess no-one here really does either !

Radical new model of society is apparently needed, but those with the assets to implement it would be the one’s who ‘lose’ most so it’s not going to happen until it’s in ‘their’ interests….

…all aboard the Brave New World express 😕

But recessions don’t last forever and growth always follows a recession.

Amazing, guess it’ll all be fine in the end then!

Hopefully when the growth starts again this country will be leaner, meaner and keener as a result. Basic principles of any business really.

The country is not a business.

Lifer no one know whether the cuts will work, let alone me.

Well all the evidence points to them not working, so what does that tell you?

The dangers of spending cuts[/url]

The IMF estimates that spending cuts of 1% of GDP subtract 0.5% from growth

If interest rates don’t fall and the currency doesn’t lose value then the IMF estimate that spending cuts of 1% of GDP subtract 1% from growth.

The IMF estimate that if other countries are cutting at the same time, if interest rates cannot fall and if the currency does not depreciate, then spending cuts of 1% of GDP subtract 2% from growth.

All I know is that carrying on borrowing more and more like we have been the last 10 years under Labour is not an option.

Acutally not true, again.

The importance of debt maturity[/url]

According to the Debt Management Office, the average maturity of UK sovereign debt is 14 years. In the US, it’s about four years. In France and Germany it’s six or seven. Greek debt has an average maturity of just under 8 years. As I mentioned yesterday, they have about 10% of their debt coming due in the next few months.

That makes an enormous difference to the amount of gilts we need to ask the debt markets to buy in a given year. It also means that even fairly large increases in funding costs will only have a gradual effect on the cost of servicing UK debt. That burden is still lower today, as a share of total spending, than it was for most of the 1980s and 1990s.

For Greece, debt servicing costs now account for just under 12% of GDP. In the UK, it’s costing less than 3% of GDP.

Why the type of debt also matters[/url]

Osborne is often keen to point out that the UK deficit is higher than that of Greece, or Portugal, or whoever is in the news with debt problems in any given month. But this misses the point. Britain might have a higher deficit than those countries but it still needs to borrow less in any given year.

This may seem counterintuitive, but it’s actually quite straight-forward. Whilst Britain has to issue more debt to fund its deficit, it has to refinance much less existing debt. The long debt profile means that less of the old debt is due each year.

…

Taken together I think the UK’s low stock of debt, the low interest rates it attracts and the debt profile outlined above more than offset the high deficit. I think the risk of cutting as fast and deep as the Government intends is far worse than the risk of a loss of confidence. I certainly don’t say that there is no chance the markets would lose faith in a British government that’s adopted a different approach, I just think the balance of risks points towards a less extreme and more growth friendly fiscal package.

Wading in with half the facts and fighting a corner you don’t fully understand is a ridiculous position to be in.