Autumn Statement
05 December 2012, 09:36 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osborne will say in brief that what he is doing is not realy working (he won;t say that, but the figures show it) and he now thinks it will take longer than he said to meet the debt targets, but as he's a politician with a matching ego he will never admit he is wrong so we carry on regardless.
We're all f**ked and he and his chums are fine. Merry bloody Christmas. End of statement
05 December 2012, 09:51 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not going to be very uplifting, that's for sure, although he'll trumpet the scrapping of the 3p fuel tax as loudly as he can. Reductions in pension relief, introduction of a super tax on high value properties, increased bank levies, etc etc.
05 December 2012, 10:25 AM
#7
Just seems to be honest working man is constantly taking a kicking from the government.
How hard can it be to pull the plug on fighting wars with tom,dick or harry - that'll save a lot.
Stop giving money to other countries until we sort out own issues.
Money is being festered away all in the time in the public sector, and no one is ever held accountable for their ***** ups, they'd be sacked in the private sector.
And giving HMRC 150 million to increase tax revenue - are they being set any targets, or will this get squandered too
How hard can it be to pull the plug on fighting wars with tom,dick or harry - that'll save a lot.
Stop giving money to other countries until we sort out own issues.
Money is being festered away all in the time in the public sector, and no one is ever held accountable for their ***** ups, they'd be sacked in the private sector.
And giving HMRC 150 million to increase tax revenue - are they being set any targets, or will this get squandered too
Trending Topics
05 December 2012, 11:55 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osborne is going to get a hard time today, no doubt. As above money from changing pension relief for wealthy. Only small increase in benefits and cut to public sector spending.
But he must radically change the climate for small and medium businesses and be firmer with the banks about lending. I asked about a £500 o/d limit on a business account I have had (run well for over 30 years) and was offered 17% wtf.
I think a mansion tax is a non-starter but I am happy to keep overseas aid going if it is better monitored.
I would take a huge axe to the defence budget including scrapping Trident. UK doesn't have a global nuclear role any more.
dl
But he must radically change the climate for small and medium businesses and be firmer with the banks about lending. I asked about a £500 o/d limit on a business account I have had (run well for over 30 years) and was offered 17% wtf.
I think a mansion tax is a non-starter but I am happy to keep overseas aid going if it is better monitored.
I would take a huge axe to the defence budget including scrapping Trident. UK doesn't have a global nuclear role any more.
dl
05 December 2012, 12:40 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While it is always attractive to cut defence spending, the nuclear deterrent is as valid today as it was 30 or 50 years ago. I would rather cut the rest of the defence budget than the nuclear deterrent as it is just that - a deterrent. It's a passive system you hope never to use, on the basis that merely having it gives an aggressor pause, especially if it's one of the few responses you have to any aggression. While it is expensive, it's cheaper than having to fend off aggressors who might 'fancy a go' at the also-depleted conventional forces should you have no nuclear deterrent.
05 December 2012, 12:48 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Pull our trousers down would you??
It would cost more to not have Trident than have it, pretty much. It's cheap at twice the price!
05 December 2012, 12:50 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
05 December 2012, 12:55 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
While it is always attractive to cut defence spending, the nuclear deterrent is as valid today as it was 30 or 50 years ago. I would rather cut the rest of the defence budget than the nuclear deterrent as it is just that - a deterrent. It's a passive system you hope never to use, on the basis that merely having it gives an aggressor pause, especially if it's one of the few responses you have to any aggression. While it is expensive, it's cheaper than having to fend off aggressors who might 'fancy a go' at the also-depleted conventional forces should you have no nuclear deterrent.
While it is always attractive to cut defence spending, the nuclear deterrent is as valid today as it was 30 or 50 years ago. I would rather cut the rest of the defence budget than the nuclear deterrent as it is just that - a deterrent. It's a passive system you hope never to use, on the basis that merely having it gives an aggressor pause, especially if it's one of the few responses you have to any aggression. While it is expensive, it's cheaper than having to fend off aggressors who might 'fancy a go' at the also-depleted conventional forces should you have no nuclear deterrent.
But looking at the near future, say the next 20 years, who is going the threaten UK, aside from the Scots
Israel/USA will take care of Iran. Pakistan may be but would we really want to nuke Pakistan?? Plus we have France spending silly amounts of money on defence so we could be nice to them if Europe is threatened.
Not forgetting that nuclear attack is vile. Perhaps a dirty bomb is the worst we can expect?
And perhaps we could still keep a nuclear deterrent but not super expensive submarines pottering around.
And without nukes we might be less of a target ourselves??
dl
05 December 2012, 12:57 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 December 2012, 01:17 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Yes, I am the chap who delights in allowing you and yours to sleep safe at night, I am the chap who has helped keep the world from a Nuclear Holocaust .... guilty as charged.
05 December 2012, 01:25 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate I am in a minority here
But looking at the near future, say the next 20 years, who is going the threaten UK, aside from the Scots
Israel/USA will take care of Iran. Pakistan may be but would we really want to nuke Pakistan?? Plus we have France spending silly amounts of money on defence so we could be nice to them if Europe is threatened.
Not forgetting that nuclear attack is vile. Perhaps a dirty bomb is the worst we can expect?
And perhaps we could still keep a nuclear deterrent but not super expensive submarines pottering around.
And without nukes we might be less of a target ourselves??
dl
But looking at the near future, say the next 20 years, who is going the threaten UK, aside from the Scots
Israel/USA will take care of Iran. Pakistan may be but would we really want to nuke Pakistan?? Plus we have France spending silly amounts of money on defence so we could be nice to them if Europe is threatened.
Not forgetting that nuclear attack is vile. Perhaps a dirty bomb is the worst we can expect?
And perhaps we could still keep a nuclear deterrent but not super expensive submarines pottering around.
And without nukes we might be less of a target ourselves??
dl
Nuclear weapons are indeed terrifying inventions - I shy away from vile as the peaceful benefits of the research are considerable, but they are definitely terrifying.
Submarines are one of the safest methods of maintaining a deterrent, and crucially allow a physically small number of weapons to have a far greater diplomatic and military effect. This is because if launch sites are known it is possible for an aggressor to launch an attack that could disable land-based launch sites - either through sabotage or direct assault (perhaps even nuclear).
This is not to say a land-based strategy is without merit; the US 'Titan' missile bases were intended to be a big, obvious, without-a-shadow-of-doubt presentation of their nuclear capability. But this is only part of the story - with land-based resources you are showing the world you have this terrible weapon, but you are also telling them where it is. A submarine based strategy is the hidden supplemental to the land-based element, and what you're doing then is saying 'Look, we have these weapons, and some of them are here. But some of them are somewhere else, somewhere you will never find them - even if you get to our land-based assets, you will still have to face the retaliation of our sea-based assets'.
So keeping missiles on submarines is no luxury - it is IMO an essential part of any nuclear deterrent. On a human scale, the land-based missiles are the big shotgun in your hand, the one you show your enemies to show you have it, but also so they can see it's not actually pointed at them at that moment. The submarines are the sniper on the hill half a mile away covering you - they know the sniper is somewhere, and they have their own sniper pointed at you, and you know that too, but as long as neither of you points your big noisy shotgun at each other you're all going to stay alive.
To achieve the same effect without submarines would require you to have many, many more missiles - the intent being to try and guarantee you always had a launch capability no matter how many sites were successfully attacked at once. This requires a lot of land, a lot of manpower, a lot of security and hence a lot of money. Obviously I don't have the number to confirm it, but submarines may well be the cheapest, most secure and most reliable way of making a small number of missiles be as effective as a much larger number of land-based ones.
05 December 2012, 01:30 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the statement of would not having nuclear weapons make us less of a target, I would consider that a very unwise stance. It is the direct equivalent of saying that fitting an alarm to your car or house makes you more of a target for burgulary - it doesn't, it makes you less of a target as it deters the casual thief.
05 December 2012, 01:45 PM
#23
In fairness; Does anyone really think its possible to turn-around a economy within 2 years 
This mess will take far longer to sort out; and its pinnacle on how the global economy fares.
The ten year marker will be 2018, and that is IMO when we may see some form of decent economy again....although by then all the lend-lease rubbish we've been burdened with will start biting us in the ****. Cheers Gordon
This mess will take far longer to sort out; and its pinnacle on how the global economy fares.
The ten year marker will be 2018, and that is IMO when we may see some form of decent economy again....although by then all the lend-lease rubbish we've been burdened with will start biting us in the ****. Cheers Gordon
Last edited by ALi-B; 05 December 2012 at 01:47 PM.
05 December 2012, 02:39 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate I am in a minority here
But looking at the near future, say the next 20 years, who is going the threaten UK, aside from the Scots
Israel/USA will take care of Iran. Pakistan may be but would we really want to nuke Pakistan?? Plus we have France spending silly amounts of money on defence so we could be nice to them if Europe is threatened.
Not forgetting that nuclear attack is vile. Perhaps a dirty bomb is the worst we can expect?
And perhaps we could still keep a nuclear deterrent but not super expensive submarines pottering around.
And without nukes we might be less of a target ourselves??
dl
But looking at the near future, say the next 20 years, who is going the threaten UK, aside from the Scots
Israel/USA will take care of Iran. Pakistan may be but would we really want to nuke Pakistan?? Plus we have France spending silly amounts of money on defence so we could be nice to them if Europe is threatened.
Not forgetting that nuclear attack is vile. Perhaps a dirty bomb is the worst we can expect?
And perhaps we could still keep a nuclear deterrent but not super expensive submarines pottering around.
And without nukes we might be less of a target ourselves??
dl
Not sure what you mean regarding the Scots. Care to elucidate?
You would trust/ask France to protect the U.K.? Did you do History at school?
Nuclear weapons are vile? No ****, that's why they are a deterrent. Submarines are difficult to find, can you see why they are ideal for launching missiles? We could always use harsh words to defend ourselves.
Your comments are naive in the extreme.
05 December 2012, 02:42 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Seemed like a reasonable performance from Osbourne today.
It's all very well for people to just chant the usual rhetoric ie that they're all the same, they only look after their mates, they're all useless etc but that I'm afraid is a little immature.
They aren't all the same, don't forget the direction we were going in when the now shadow chancellor ***** was in the cabinet. Spend spend spend with no plan about what to do about our debt.
The welfare system is being reformed, our interest rates remain low due to our fiscal credibility, over 1 million jobs have been created.
Today the fuel rise has been scrapped, corporation tax reduced, £5bn for infrastructure, tax relief on plant/machinery for companies increased 10 fold, more low paid people removed from paying any tax.
These are difficult times and the government doesn't always get it right but it gets boring just seeing the same old people (ie F1 Fan) just spouting the same old rhetoric.
I can tell you one thing, posh boy or not, I'd rather have Osbourne in charge of the finances than that deluded nut job ***** and his nasally challenged nerdy boy boss.
It's all very well for people to just chant the usual rhetoric ie that they're all the same, they only look after their mates, they're all useless etc but that I'm afraid is a little immature.
They aren't all the same, don't forget the direction we were going in when the now shadow chancellor ***** was in the cabinet. Spend spend spend with no plan about what to do about our debt.
The welfare system is being reformed, our interest rates remain low due to our fiscal credibility, over 1 million jobs have been created.
Today the fuel rise has been scrapped, corporation tax reduced, £5bn for infrastructure, tax relief on plant/machinery for companies increased 10 fold, more low paid people removed from paying any tax.
These are difficult times and the government doesn't always get it right but it gets boring just seeing the same old people (ie F1 Fan) just spouting the same old rhetoric.
I can tell you one thing, posh boy or not, I'd rather have Osbourne in charge of the finances than that deluded nut job ***** and his nasally challenged nerdy boy boss.
05 December 2012, 02:46 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem - much of my interest in it came about after a visit to an old Titan missile base on a trip to the states (http://www.titanmissilemuseum.org/). I went in expecting a whole lot of 'yee-haw' and 'we got da bomb', but actually found it to be very tasteful and respectful of the reasons behind why they existed and what their real purpose was - namely to be the visible part of the deterrent.
If you ever happen to be in that part of the world I can thoroughly recommend a visit.
If you ever happen to be in that part of the world I can thoroughly recommend a visit.
05 December 2012, 02:58 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are difficult times and the government doesn't always get it right but it gets boring just seeing the same old people (ie F1 Fan) just spouting the same old rhetoric.
I can tell you one thing, posh boy or not, I'd rather have Osbourne in charge of the finances than that deluded nut job ***** and his nasally challenged nerdy boy boss.
I can tell you one thing, posh boy or not, I'd rather have Osbourne in charge of the finances than that deluded nut job ***** and his nasally challenged nerdy boy boss.
Fact is right now they are all the same and until someone provides me with some real evidence that current policies are working you will forgive me if I don't get too excited at the future prospects for our economy and country.