I'm still waiting for somebody to explain Mattee's first graph that shows that the UK has a debt to GDP % of 500.

Mattee, care to explain? I know you are on a ferry but since you have time to post about the Fezza you saw perhaps you could clear this up?

 

FFS you two must have the shortest memories on SN. We have had this debate twice and the last time was March 2013 when you both contributed to the thread and asked me the same question. I seem to remember you didn't like the answers.

Anyway paraphrased here is some of what I said .

The creation of proper state owned social housing schemes

Jobseekers should be made to work on community projects (proper ones not the usual do gooder's idea of a community project) on the days they aren't 'looking for work'. By work I mean work as in turn up on time, do a proper day's work and go home.... if you are late, don't turn up or don't work hard... bye bye benefits!

Child benefit capped at 2 children only and only paid for people on extremely low incomes. Sorry, but if you can't afford them keep it in your pants.

Means test anyone on any benefit including pensions which many say is not a benefit, but it is a drain on the state so for this discussion it is..

Basically if you don't need it then you don't get it! Yes I know the argument will be it's not fair, but life is not fair so tough!

Create a proper benefit fraud squad with no option draconian penalties for those caught thieving off the state.

Cut benefits to a bare minimum. Make them a safety net not a lifestyle choice!

The ECHR will have their say about that so let's resign from that nonsense and create a human rights law that actually does what it should do!

Put the NHS back in control of the people that know how to run it rather than a load of political middle managers who spend their life chasing government targets and spending shed loads of money on crap!

On a wider scale (and as this thread is about the economy as a whole) I would like to see foreign aid stopped and for us to stop poking our noses into Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and the likes. We are not a world superpower and when the likes of Cameron accept this we will be a lot better off.

I want to see an end to the public sector being run by people who see wastage and laziness as the norm. Right the way through from councils to the top line government departments. Employ proper successful business people to make these operations properly productive. Make them accountable for every penny they spend! We all know what goes on in these institutions so how about we stop pretending and deal with it!

Force banks to lend to small businesses with penalties if they don't. Force councils to offer reduced rates on empty commercial properties to allow new shops and businesses to get off the ground.

Cut VAT back to 17.5% .. I doubt the overall revenue would be much less and people would feel they are getting something back.

Abolish and I mean properly abolish the stupid amounts of red tape around everything from planning departments to employment law. All these things restrict people from doing things. FFS my local council has a 90 page document on the legalities of walking your dog!!! This sort of **** needs to stop! It costs taxpayers' money and is downright stupid!

And breathe!

 

^^ That works for me ^^

 

And that's all fine as it goes, I am sure not many on snet would disagree

And to a large extent deals with the "waste", of created wealth

But isn't mattee's observation on the nature of wealth creation

I.e how is a nations wealth actually created and by whom

Is it by and large just based on a rise on asset prices or an actual increase productivity. You know producing things to sell, at a profit etc

The figures seem to suggest the former, we do not seem to be, as a nation much more "productive"

In fact despite rising employment, a significant number of people are under employed - short term , zero hour contracts etc

Paradoxically they have little spare money to actually spend on anything produced - a downward spiral

 

Graph says oecd debt.


We seem to be as debt ridden as lots of others, which is the bottom line I guess.

Thank **** we've discovered shale

 

How much do you think "proper state owned" housing is going to cost and how is it going to be funded? Osborne already has a policy for increased affordable housing with reforms to the social housing programme.

Yep, Osborne was already doing this with his "work for benefits" scheme. But the Court of Appeal deemed it unlawful.

This will have to be means tested, how much will this cost to setup and administer? How will it be funded?

Again means testing will need to be setup and administered. Again how much is this going to cost and how is this going to be funded?

Again will cost to setup and administer. Also will likely require increase spending on Police and prison services with possible increase in civil unrest.

I agree with this whole heartedly, possibly with a non-exchangeable/transferable voucher system. Thought it might increase reliance on food banks and charities.

Means we would possibly have to opt out of the EU for this to be effective, which in turn will affect businesses and trade with the rest of the EU. Lets see what Cameron's referendum brings and what he can negotiate. Likely to be squat all!

Not sure if it is currently possible with the long term contractual obligations of PFI's. Do we "buy" ourselves out of these contracts? I don't know, my knowledge in this area is almost next to nothing.

On the subject of foreign aid, it is a very contentious issue. On one hand there is the humanitarian side and on the other the corrupt governments squandering the aid. I don't think it should be cut, but it shouldn't increase, but rather assess and ensure the aid is more wisely targeted and spent instead of handing out a "grand standing" figure of how much we spend instead of what it delivers.

"people who see wastage and laziness as the norm" - is this endemic through out the pubic sector then? How will go about attracting successful business people, presumably from the private sector? Big pay packages. How are you going to fund the inevitable redundancies that will result? How are you going to ensure the public sector is running at its most efficient? Again how much is this going to cost and how is this going to be funded?

You can't force banks to lend to businesses if deem then not to be financially viable. We have already witnessed the result of irresponsible and non viable lending.

The VAT cut by Darling from 17.5% to 15% had no effect on consumer spending and cost the Treasury £12bn in lost revenue.

What would there be a significant saving compared to the cost of abolishing the red tape?

You're right, we did discuss the "fixing" of the economy a number of times, and each time, as before, all conjecture, you never explained or consider the cost implications and social impact of such measures and how they are to be funded nor the timescales for these changes. I would say that with the measures you've listed, there would be a massive increase in public spending on restructuring and retraining departments and personnel, drafting and abolishing policies without any immediate, if any, in return. Costs would likely spiral out of control if trying to achieve this in one term in office. I very much doubt they could be achieved in one term in office, and your policies would be highly unpopular with the majority of the population, making a second term highly unlikely to some of these come to fruition. Massive costs and wastage, business as usual then.

 

You don't believe in means testing, but you agree with benefits at the bare minimum

What is your basis for determining the bare minimum?

 

What effect has raising it to 20% made?

 

I never said I was against means testing, but there is no doubt there would be a cost burden and time to setup and administer. I fully understand that it is unlikely to be a viable option since there are many factors to determine the cost of living against peoples’ circumstances. I think a vouchers scheme would go some way to ensure benefits is used as intended, but obviously this would need buy in from retailers and utility companies. Take for example, Child Benefit, the Government realise the difficulties and the cost of means testing this benefit, hence why they opted to go with policy they are currently running with. Sure it is unfair in that individual earnings of a two income house hold of £100k can still claim the benefits, whilst a single income household of £60k can’t. But the overall effort is to reduce the cost to taxpayers subsidising those who chose benefits as a lifestyle option.

 

I think figures indicate that he has raised £23bn in tax revenue through the hike in VAT. Sure it goes someway to making up the lost revenue of the previous drop in VAT rate and a those on low income will obviously feel it more than those who have higher incomes. But to counter that, basic rate income tax threshold has been raised.

 

Ding; I don't know but it looked pretty.

Do any of you know why we "feel" wealthy again? Massive quantitive easing on a scale that is absurd. The US is doing it even more.

Do you know why bloated, inneffective banks seem to be okay again? Enormous amounts of derivatives trading; why? Because it's a very neat way of hiding errors, mistakes and near fraud on a huge scale. Banks are in a dismal state in terms of balance sheets but they hide it all so well.

We are in for an epic crash; governments may continue to stall it and convince the (not very bright) public all is great again but that's just tweaking micro economics. Our macro economy is totally screwed.

There's a great article in the Spectator; I suggest some of you read that and other media that doesn't just regurgitate what the government PR machines feed them.
Anyway, lovely here in Spain but a bit damp.

 

Remind me about your predictions regarding gold, Matthew.

 

Got a link please?

 

This was in print; not sure if there's an online version.

Whatever James. Your a god loving loony which has sadly killed any credibility.

 

I thought Osborne's speech today was very good.

 

Certainly an outreach to those sick of paying for those on the welfare state.

Whilst I welcome cuts, the problem is those in charge of the cutting will probably undermine his intentions.

 

It was, actually. These politicians generally have to be good speakers; well, except for the likes of that illogical and emotionally led Salmond and the insight deficient Milliband.

I also noticed that Os has lost weight and has had a hair cut. Been on a diet, or has shunned alcohol, perhaps. His baby face now looks less sarcastic and more congruent. Basically, he was looking good.

 

RELATIVELY speaking.

 

Still a baby face, though. Good smile. I like people with good smile. He looked less arrogant and more kinda humble. Looks can be deceptive etc. and I know that.

 

Forgot to say, when one's on a strict diet, one doesn't have energy to be arrogant and too sarcastic. That could've been the reason why he looked relatively humble.

 

Yes, he does look better now than he did a few years back. He looks less smarmy!

 

Well well. Now I not only thank god for ***** not being in charge but I thank god that he will now NEVER be in charge

It was one of the highlights of the election for me to see that idiot lose his seat and know that he will never be in charge of the coffers again.

Other highlights were seeing so many Lib Dem scalps taken, though I think Danny Alexander was generally on the right side. The night before the election Clegg was saying they would be the 'surprise' result of the election, how right he was

Anyway, I thought the best we could hope for was another Con-Lib coalition but the nightmare of a Labour led govt of some kind was always present. So a Tory majority, albeit slim, was a relief.

Difficult times ahead for Cameron, we'll have to see how he copes.

Looking forward I reckon a leadership contest in about three years time and then Boris for PM going into the next election

 

That buffoon, Christ save us please..

 

A buffoon he might be but at least we'd all have a good laugh at him

 

I am one that believes that the welfare state spending needs looking at but I cannot believe how naïve people when they say unemployment is down..............There are shed loads of people who have spent a long time on the dole when they are capable of working but what I find annoying is if you have worked for years and paid your taxes if you become unemployed for whatever reason once 6 months is up all benefits stop especially if you have a partner who is still working yet all these long term unemployed get benefits week in and week out..................I got caught out like that a few years back - 30 years of paying taxes but only allowed 6 months JSA because my wife took home more than £800 per month.......Rent was £650 - after selling off stuff and help from family we survived the 3 months with no money from me - fair isn't it?.........I have been temping and contracting (not through choice - Permanent work still seems a dream) for the last 4 years.......so in conclusion when you hear that unemployment is down think to yourself just how many people have come to the end of their 6 months JSA allowance and have now dropped off the unemployment figures. Do all the right things and get shafted but if you do all the wrong things there is plenty of cash for you.

 

Imho, compared to Cameron, he seems like he has more of a clear idea which way he would like the country to go, especially in terms of the economy. He also has that common touch that Cameron/Osborne lack.

A week is a long time in politics let alone five years but I think Boris is very 'electable' and will be an asset for the party.

 

The only problem with Boris Johnson is the image he projects on the world stage. He is charismatic but also a bumbling buffoon who at times looks scruffy and says the most ill timed and inappropriate things in a given situation. If we want someone to represent the UK as one of the world leaders, I would rather someone who was more "statesman" like.

 

What way would that be?

 

You mean somebody like Blair?

Seriously though I think we're going to see a big change in his presentation over the next couple of years so as to be more statesman like. He'll keep just a little bit of that eccentricity as that's what seems to endear him to the general public.

 

Like him or loath him, Blair was a true statesman and was one who could seriously command a world stage, but then again he shared it with Bush who made him look very good.

BJ is a bit rough round the edges and his eccentricity does lend him some appeal, hopefully he'll polish up well when the time comes.