| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Autumn Statement | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 3 2014, 02:12 PM (1,561 Views) | |
| AndyK | Dec 3 2014, 02:12 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Its the Yorkshire Post, for some reason, which comes up on Google with the best synopsis. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/live-coverage-boost-for-homebuyers-as-osborne-slashes-stamp-duty-1-6984394 Good to see we are going to Mars :-\ |
 |
 
|
| jaguar | Dec 3 2014, 05:05 PM Post #2 |
Regular Member
|
A barren red world, with little to no intelligence. Isn't that Labour? |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Dec 3 2014, 08:09 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
|
Which itself is showing no signs of life.  I find it wise to see what the informed in the press make of it, and with particular interest in Ed Balls reply. I got the impression he was struggling to respond to Labours advantage. I think it is true to say that in recent times every proposal by the Conservatives Liberal coalition has been opposed. I know the opposition is there to oppose, but their tactics have been depressingly repetitive, and undermining of the nations moral. The ways of current politics is not good for us. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Dec 3 2014, 08:11 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
|
Yes, Ed was struggling a bit. I liked the Google tax, although how he proposes to do this is a mystery as we have signed bilateral agreements to allow these firms to be tax resident outside the UK. Interesting to note Starbucks is moving its head office to the UK. Edited by AndyK, Dec 3 2014, 08:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Heinrich | Dec 3 2014, 11:47 PM Post #5 |
Regular Guy
|
Nobody believes a word George Osborne says, not even himself. The Tories are the walking dead. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 4 2014, 08:42 AM Post #6 |
Prudence and Thrift
|
Hard to believe the claimed future cuts in Public Spending, even though welcome, much appears to be based on assumptions on interest rates and inflation, but the only alternative is Labour a political force that is congenitally addicted to economic failure. Balls had nothing to offer, because Labour has no ideas left in the cupboard. Autumn Statement was an admission of the failure to cut Public Spending at the rate promised and a demonstration of the naivety of Politicians who always put too much faith in future growth bringing future revenues. Osbrown economics have added 5 years and dragged out the pain, but none of the dire forecasts of destruction and rampant unemployment, previously made by Darling and Balls, have come to pass. Truth is we do and this is Osborne's luck, have a jobs miracle where there are 1.4 million more full-time workers now, 85% full time, than there were when the coalition was formed. The downside is that real wages, based on CPI, will not recover to pre-crash levels until ~2020. Will our economy be rebalanced away from consumption and towards production by 2020? I doubt it and Labour are not even interested. As I have often said "what is Labour for when there is no Taxpayer's money to waste on hobby projects"? |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 4 2014, 09:01 AM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
|
RJD just take your blinkers off please, the current shower in power has £42 billions worth of "hobby project", HS2, and the cost of Iain Duncan Smith is getting ever higher. |
|
|
|
| Heinrich | Dec 4 2014, 09:26 AM Post #8 |
|
Regular Guy
|
No, because the late "Baroness" Thatcher, followed by New Labour, followed by the Tories again, between them scuttled England as an industrial power and replaced manufacturing with unregulated banking and financial services in London. Between them, the two parties consigned England to a debt-ridden mess, incapable of producing anything of value and with a reputation in Europe for attempting to hold back the ever closer political union and being an isolationist drag on European progress. What a sad sight for a once proud country with a hard working class that was the salt of the earth. The fight was lost and the right-wingers got their way. Edited by Heinrich, Dec 4 2014, 09:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
| krugerman | Dec 4 2014, 09:35 AM Post #9 |
Regular Member
|
Lets remind ourselves that Mr Osborne has now been in charge of our countrys finances for over four and a half years, and in that time he has missed every target, blown the economy well off course, lost our AAA credit rating, increased our national debt, re-issued forcast after forcast, and the only word to describe such a record is "Failure". Now the government and Mr Osborne want us to "trust him" to put things back on course Imagine a gas fitter coming to repair your central heating, he spends all winter trying to repair the system while you sit in the cold, he then pleads with you not to get someone else in to fix it, instead he should be given another chance. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 4 2014, 09:42 AM Post #10 |
|
Senior Member
|
A friend of mine had got just that problem at the moment. (He lives in a council house.) |
|
|
|
| HIGHWAY | Dec 4 2014, 09:43 AM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
|
Is there another person,or party who can fix the problem in your mind ? |
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 4 2014, 09:47 AM Post #12 |
Honourable Member
|
Listening to three political commentators on TV yesterday they were all in agreement that no one could believe Osborne's Autumn Statement, not even Osborne himself. Easy to see why the Tory faithful immediately attempt to switch the spotlight onto Labour. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 4 2014, 01:12 PM Post #13 |
|
Senior Member
|
It appears the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not believe him either. (I have been trying find the IFS report but it is not on their website yet.) http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-12-04/ifs-warns-private-sector-wage-rises-will-hit-spending-plans/ OBR: 60% of planned spending cuts still to come Public spending is likely to fall to its lowest level since the 1930s during the next Parliament, according to new analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR say so far we have only seen 40% of the spending cuts set out by George Osborne, meaning a difficult outlook for both government departments and local government from 2015 onwards. 4 December 2014 at 10:33am IFS warns private sector wage rises may hit spending plans The head of the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that a boost in private sector wages could make it more difficult for the next government to curb public spending. Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, IFS director Paul Johnson argued that higher private sector wages would make it "much harder" to hold down public sector pay as has been done over the current Parliament. Even if it has not been too difficult over this period, that doesn’t mean it won’t be difficult over the next period. Apart from anything else, they have done the relatively easier things first. And, of course, we’ve actually had a relatively easy environment for doing it. Private sector wages have been very weak, which has made it relatively easy to keep public sector wages down. If private sector wages start to grow, as we hope they will, it will be much harder to keep public sector wages down. – Paul Johnson, Institute of Fiscal Studies |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Dec 4 2014, 01:15 PM Post #14 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
So, the BBC news this lunchtime mentions that the OBR predicts that 1 Million Public Sector jobs will be lost service the next swathe of spending cut. But then goes on to mention that meet those service demands the Private Sector will need to create 1.8 Million jobs. Surely this means that the Private Sector is only half as efficient as the Public Sector. All The Best |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 4 2014, 01:16 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
|
So far only you and I have recognised the precariousness of the Chancellors plans. (did you read http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/topic/10796173/) My instincts tell me that neither he nor the OBR place any real reliance on their own projections (the record for both these are abysmal), which begs the question 'what are we paying for'? The OBR in particular provides no value at all except as part of the propaganda Osborne desperately needs. Strange as it will seem, a spending requirement (PBSR) of 35% GDP is not in itself a stretch too far (Labour under Brown came close to it for a period). The nigger there is that it is only attainable if GDP greatly increases and Austerity measures as planned will prevent that. |
|
|
|
| krugerman | Dec 4 2014, 01:43 PM Post #16 |
|
Regular Member
|
Well there really only is one other possibility, UKIP are not going to form the next government, neither are the Lib Dems, the chancellor in charge of our economic and financial strategy will either be Mr Osborne, or Mr Balls. As Mr Osborne has failed miserably, and with Tory economic policy obviously totally discredited, I would suggest let the other man and the other main political party take over, and the sooner the better. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 4 2014, 01:58 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
|
Fix? What problems do you envisage appearing (being exacerbated) with a further 25% cut to spending on public services? Are you prepared for it? NHS in critical condition? Schools can't absorb such reductions without dire consequences? Policing - rising crime? Inner city riots? Rising costs of Welfare? More economic stagnation? Defence spending = Foreign Aid spending (it's getting there) ........ oh and interest on the debt at over £60bn per year. Speculation? Probably closer to the eventuality than any the OBR have made! |
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 4 2014, 03:25 PM Post #18 |
Senior Member
|
I don't think much of the Tory solution. What was Labours solution again? Different cuts. |
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 4 2014, 03:32 PM Post #19 |
|
Honourable Member
|
There is another alternative, let the Tories back in to face the music they created, and allow a vote of no confidence to heave them out of office for ten years or more. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 4 2014, 03:38 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
|
Labour when Darling was Chancellor had the priority of stimulating growth + spending cuts. That is what Obama did in the USA. Osborne is the bigger problem here ........ even the banks are nervous of his plans. What I posted as outcomes are the real possibility of him remaining as Chancellor. A balanced economy is not even remotely possible unless there is growth in GDP - his cuts will stifle growth once again. We need Blair & Brown again ........ don't you agree? |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Dec 4 2014, 03:48 PM Post #21 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
If that is the, less than palatable, choice I advise everyone to vote Tory. Because is Balls is less economically literate than my dog. All The Best Edited by Pro Veritas, Dec 4 2014, 03:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 4 2014, 04:27 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
|
If we can compare Balls to a playful obedient and illiterate harmless pet, I'd rather that than the venomous constricting snake in the grass of Osborne. Balls would easy to steer away from crisis ...... Osborne is hell bent on getting there. Edited by Affa, Dec 4 2014, 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 4 2014, 04:57 PM Post #23 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Not really, I have been very disappointed by Osborne but do not see how it is possible that Labour could or would meet any of my aspirations for an economy worth passing on to future generations. In short Osborne failed, but not totally, but Labour would. Why the left are now so angry is a surprise as there desire was always for a much slower pace in cuts if cuts were at all necessary, seems rather hypocritical to call for moderation, get it then complain. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 4 2014, 05:06 PM Post #24 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Difference is that HS2 is a future hobby infrastructure project and IDS needs time to implement reforms, he has hardly started. Me I do not trust them to do the difficult things, but I trust Labour the least as they appear to be Hell bent on our economic destruction. Osborne is travelling in the correct direction, but far too slowly and I doubt that his aspirations for further cuts post 2015 are possible to the degree required, far too many vested interests, far too many rubber spined Politicians. The easy thing is to carry on regardless and pass the cost on to the next generation. If there is no Gov. with an overall majority then there will be years of fudge and dither and you can kiss goodbye to any rebalancing of the economy. Sh1t who on the left cares about such anyway? |
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 4 2014, 05:20 PM Post #25 |
|
Honourable Member
|
Yes, really. The thread is about the Autumn Statement. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 4 2014, 05:41 PM Post #26 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Exactly and Labour had nothing of interest on offer. So whilst Osborne disappoints there is no viable alternative. Does anyone really believe that Labour will be tougher and cut harder? I don't think so! |
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 4 2014, 05:53 PM Post #27 |
|
Senior Member
|
How do you Stimulate Growth without spending? |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Dec 4 2014, 06:02 PM Post #28 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
By increasing taxes on static wealth (not including 1st homes) and decreasing taxes on R&D and infrastructure (corporate and public sector) investment. All The Best |
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 4 2014, 06:06 PM Post #29 |
|
Senior Member
|
How much would taxing static wealth bring in? |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 4 2014, 06:22 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
|
I will sound like a broken record here. Remove all support for asset prices, this means land and especially housing. With this action indirect support for wages will lessen considerably. But of course a Conservative government is the least likely of any party to implement such changes as it would hit the better off and the economically inactive who live off of rent seeking, the upside is it would energise those in the workforce who are presently unable to participate because they are currently priced out of building a stable future for themselves. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 4 2014, 06:26 PM Post #31 |
|
Senior Member
|
No idea, but the point is to stop land hoarding and deliberate and cynical manipulation of assets, a use it or loose it kind of system should be brought in, we have tried everything to sort this problem and it has not worked, time to play hardball and put the good of society above the selfish needs of the few. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 4 2014, 06:27 PM Post #32 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
It is important to understand why the deficit hasn’t fallen. It is emphatically not because the government has failed to impose the intended spending cuts. It is because the economy performed so poorly in the first half of the parliament, hitting revenues very hard. So instead of compensating by increasing the depth of cuts, Osborne chose to ride it through. In 1997 the Public Sector spent 37% of GDP and at the end of the boom years Labour had pumped this up to 45%, getting back to around 37% will be a very difficult task and with the NHS, Education and Overseas Aid ring-fenced then something has to give, will we give up on defence? |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 4 2014, 06:42 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
|
I'm afraid it will require an economic collapse and the intervention of the IMF to bring about structural reform in the UK, such is the almost total unwillingness to confront the fact that the country needs a long and painful period of deflation to bring income into line aspiration one again, of course no one will vote for prolonged hardship so economic collapse it is....... |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 4 2014, 07:18 PM Post #34 |
|
Senior Member
|
It's astonishing that everybody, here and on TV debates, seem terrified of mentioning taxes (avoidance and evasion exempted). The tax burden is historically low, lower than in Germany (which does have a balanced economy) and lower than the rest of main stream Europe. Corporation tax receipts have never been lower but we are told there is no business recession. GDP is back at pre-crisis level, but revenues nowhere near that time - "where have all the flowers gone"? |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 4 2014, 07:22 PM Post #35 |
|
Senior Member
|
Most of the extra jobs created are low wage with little tax revenue created. |
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 4 2014, 07:29 PM Post #36 |
|
Honourable Member
|
The first reply was aimed at Labour, that's why I made my obvious point. Lets take the thread away from Osborne and dump it on Labour. And you're still at it! |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Dec 4 2014, 07:34 PM Post #37 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
Its not how much it would bring in that counts. What counts is it would incentivise people to start using that wealth for investment etc rather than just sitting on it. Static wealth is total anathema to a capitalist economy. We have two options: 1) incentivise the movement of that wealth to investment, or 2) rethink whether or not we want a capitalist economy. All The Best Edited by Pro Veritas, Dec 4 2014, 07:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 4 2014, 07:53 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Member
|
There is already very little tax on R&D for both large and small firms, but unfortunately the system is open to abuse due to the fact that what R&D actually constitutes! I'm afraid to say I suspect many businesses just treat the rules as a form of legal tax evasion. In my opinion the spirit at least of the regulations needs rigidly enforcing. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 4 2014, 08:04 PM Post #39 |
|
Senior Member
|
I'd go further, the private sector in many cases is actually going down the same path as the often much maligned public sector, for example productivity has remained unchanged in over two decades, many firms would not exist without the workforce being given state hand outs and our share of global trade has dropped considerably in the last few years. It's a tale of subsidies and stagnation that would have some on here jumping up and down if it was "taxpayers money", but then it is anyway! By pretending that the private sector always does things better the horrendous truth can be disguised and we can kid ourselves that little bit longer. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM Post #40 |
|
Senior Member
|
Well how about this then for an utter waste of taxpayers money, a couple of days ago Margaret Hodge MP who sits on the finance select committee said that the taxpayer was in danger of loosing the entire £66bn it has "invested" in RBS. It seems this is hardly worth mentioning but we must have a conversation about the alleged waste in public services.......... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
12:34 AM Jul 14