Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:18 PM

It's astonishing that everybody, here and on TV debates, seem terrified of mentioning taxes (avoidance and evasion exempted).

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..........

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:18 PM

It's astonishing that everybody, here and on TV debates, seem terrified of mentioning taxes (avoidance and evasion exempted).

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..........

Quote:

 

Haldane said : “Real interest rates are now expected to remain negative for at least the next 40 years.”

AndyK

Dec 4 2014, 10:51 PM

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:18 PM

It's astonishing that everybody, here and on TV debates, seem terrified of mentioning taxes (avoidance and evasion exempted).

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..........

Its a zombie bank, it will never be more than a liability and should have been left to fail.

Zombie banks are what caused Japan to lay moribund for decades. It would have been painful but far better in the long run to have shut it down.

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 08:54 AM

Quote:

 

Haldane said : “Real interest rates are now expected to remain negative for at least the next 40 years.”

If this is true then one can understand why Osborne will be happy with the claim for a 2014 baby "Mum's eyes, Dad's nose and Osborne's Debt". The World is awash with cash looking for Safe Havens, even Italy is borrowing at ~2%, so with inflation running ahead of the cost of borrowing in the UK one can understand why the Tories are now as relaxed as Labour of the size of our mountain of debt. Why save your money?

I suspect Osborne's stance is much to do with votes and avoiding the thought that our Mountain of Debt ("Brown's Burden") is acceptable and we can live with it, because that would be playing right into the hands of the congenitally addicted spenders, namely Labour. I suspect that in 2020, after further cuts, there still will be another 30% to 40% left that refuses to budge. What will he say in 2020? God knows why should he care in 2015?

We missed the opportunity through political weakness, much brought about due to pressures from the lhs, we could have cut the majority of the deficit out in a single term and from 2015 onwards investing in that which makes us all richer. Instead the agony continues and we will continue to tax jobs and continue to take money out of wage earner's pockets and call it Employer's NI.

C-too

Dec 5 2014, 09:26 AM

AndyK

Dec 4 2014, 10:51 PM

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:18 PM

It's astonishing that everybody, here and on TV debates, seem terrified of mentioning taxes (avoidance and evasion exempted).

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..........

Its a zombie bank, it will never be more than a liability and should have been left to fail.

Zombie banks are what caused Japan to lay moribund for decades. It would have been painful but far better in the long run to have shut it down.

Do you think a major Bank could have been closed down back when other Banks were in trouble, without there being a knock-on effect on other Banks? A possible domino effect as people began to withdraw their savings from the Banking system. What might have been the effect on the stock markets?

Back to Buddy can you spare a dime?

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 08:54 AM

Quote:

 

Haldane said : “Real interest rates are now expected to remain negative for at least the next 40 years.”

If this is true then one can understand why Osborne will be happy with the claim for a 2014 baby "Mum's eyes, Dad's nose and Osborne's Debt". The World is awash with cash looking for Safe Havens, even Italy is borrowing at ~2%, so with inflation running ahead of the cost of borrowing in the UK one can understand why the Tories are now as relaxed as Labour of the size of our mountain of debt. Why save your money?

I suspect Osborne's stance is much to do with votes and avoiding the thought that our Mountain of Debt ("Brown's Burden") is acceptable and we can live with it, because that would be playing right into the hands of the congenitally addicted spenders, namely Labour. I suspect that in 2020, after further cuts, there still will be another 30% to 40% left that refuses to budge. What will he say in 2020? God knows why should he care in 2015?

We missed the opportunity through political weakness, much brought about due to pressures from the lhs, we could have cut the majority of the deficit out in a single term and from 2015 onwards investing in that which makes us all richer. Instead the agony continues and we will continue to tax jobs and continue to take money out of wage earner's pockets and call it Employer's NI.

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 09:49 AM

C-too

Dec 5 2014, 09:26 AM

AndyK

Dec 4 2014, 10:51 PM

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Its a zombie bank, it will never be more than a liability and should have been left to fail.

Zombie banks are what caused Japan to lay moribund for decades. It would have been painful but far better in the long run to have shut it down.

Do you think a major Bank could have been closed down back when other Banks were in trouble, without there being a knock-on effect on other Banks? A possible domino effect as people began to withdraw their savings from the Banking system. What might have been the effect on the stock markets?

Back to Buddy can you spare a dime?

It was already far too late Labour had kicked away the props years before, however, the complete socialising of the toxic debt to the benefit of Shareholders was not, for me, acceptable. Brown should have behaved more like a Venetian Merchant, but he crumbled after dithering and gave the City a free "Pass Go without going to jail". That said it probably would have been better to let Northern Rock go into Administration as the end result would have been similar to that achieved but art no cost to Taxpayers and it would have sent out a message.

Whilst the UK Banking sector is more robust today, carrying and taking fewer risks, there is still much to do to ensure that individual Banks are not too big to fail.

One also has to take a close look at RBS and examine NL's and Brown's role in particular in creating this wounded monster.

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM

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..........

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 11:25 AM

Krug: As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.
The Public may not “tolerate” a given level of public services but then the obvious question that follows is how much are they prepared to pay for the level of public services they will tolerate? Or is it that they want somebody else to pay for it?

It seems to me that there may be things that could be done to improve the situation, tax static wealth, remove support for asset prices, but whether this is enough to balance the books is questionable. Is it realistic to raise taxes to cover the deficit or is some combination of cuts and tax rises required. Even so neither party seems to be offering this option.

AndyK

Dec 5 2014, 12:37 PM

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 11:25 AM

Krug: As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.
The Public may not “tolerate” a given level of public services but then the obvious question that follows is how much are they prepared to pay for the level of public services they will tolerate? Or is it that they want somebody else to pay for it?

It seems to me that there may be things that could be done to improve the situation, tax static wealth, remove support for asset prices, but whether this is enough to balance the books is questionable. Is it realistic to raise taxes to cover the deficit or is some combination of cuts and tax rises required. Even so neither party seems to be offering this option.

How do you cross a £100bn gap with tax increases?

Mind you, cutting taxes and especially the £10k lower limit is a really stupid thing to be doing at this point.

AndyK

Dec 5 2014, 12:37 PM

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 11:25 AM

Krug: As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.
The Public may not “tolerate” a given level of public services but then the obvious question that follows is how much are they prepared to pay for the level of public services they will tolerate? Or is it that they want somebody else to pay for it?

It seems to me that there may be things that could be done to improve the situation, tax static wealth, remove support for asset prices, but whether this is enough to balance the books is questionable. Is it realistic to raise taxes to cover the deficit or is some combination of cuts and tax rises required. Even so neither party seems to be offering this option.

How do you cross a £100bn gap with tax increases?

Mind you, cutting taxes and especially the £10k lower limit is a really stupid thing to be doing at this point.

C-too

Dec 5 2014, 10:03 AM

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 09:49 AM

C-too

Dec 5 2014, 09:26 AM

AndyK

Dec 4 2014, 10:51 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Do you think a major Bank could have been closed down back when other Banks were in trouble, without there being a knock-on effect on other Banks? A possible domino effect as people began to withdraw their savings from the Banking system. What might have been the effect on the stock markets?

Back to Buddy can you spare a dime?

It was already far too late Labour had kicked away the props years before, however, the complete socialising of the toxic debt to the benefit of Shareholders was not, for me, acceptable. Brown should have behaved more like a Venetian Merchant, but he crumbled after dithering and gave the City a free "Pass Go without going to jail". That said it probably would have been better to let Northern Rock go into Administration as the end result would have been similar to that achieved but art no cost to Taxpayers and it would have sent out a message.

Whilst the UK Banking sector is more robust today, carrying and taking fewer risks, there is still much to do to ensure that individual Banks are not too big to fail.

One also has to take a close look at RBS and examine NL's and Brown's role in particular in creating this wounded monster.

Northern Rock was not the the problem, taken in isolation it could have been sorted out. The problem was the international financial meltdown.

You seem to think a long term depression would have been preferable to a long term recession. Because that's where you ill thought out opinions would have led us.

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 04:25 PM

C-too

Dec 5 2014, 10:03 AM

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 09:49 AM

C-too

Dec 5 2014, 09:26 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

It was already far too late Labour had kicked away the props years before, however, the complete socialising of the toxic debt to the benefit of Shareholders was not, for me, acceptable. Brown should have behaved more like a Venetian Merchant, but he crumbled after dithering and gave the City a free "Pass Go without going to jail". That said it probably would have been better to let Northern Rock go into Administration as the end result would have been similar to that achieved but art no cost to Taxpayers and it would have sent out a message.

Whilst the UK Banking sector is more robust today, carrying and taking fewer risks, there is still much to do to ensure that individual Banks are not too big to fail.

One also has to take a close look at RBS and examine NL's and Brown's role in particular in creating this wounded monster.

Northern Rock was not the the problem, taken in isolation it could have been sorted out. The problem was the international financial meltdown.

You seem to think a long term depression would have been preferable to a long term recession. Because that's where you ill thought out opinions would have led us.

As usual you miss the point, you spend far too much time honing your excuses for Labour rather than recognising that they made many mistakes and the two big ones that are hurting us all today are one replacing the established regulatory system with an untried tripartite one that failed not only when things seemed to be running OK, but were found to be sadly lacking when the sh1t hit the fan. Two pumping up, massively, in a very short period, the cost of the State. Now it is everyone else that is to blame, however, never those in Office with the responsibility to protect the UK Economy. By the way we have just experienced the longest depression since Adam was a lad. C2 your stories in regard to the State of Schools is a joke as increasing the overheads was counterproductive and as always you seek to blow smoke by confusing CAPEX with running costs. All you bright shiny schools and brand spanking text books does not compensate for inadequate teaching. As for you claims wrt to waiting times, firstly you know that these stats were distorted by changes in practice and targets and secondly you have absolutely no idea whether or not such gains could have been obtained at a fraction of increased costs. Your only interest is in polishing the NL Turd. It is people of your ilk, in my view, that have been an impediment to UK economic progress since WW2.

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 08:54 AM

I suspect Osborne's stance is much to do with votes and avoiding the thought that our Mountain of Debt ("Brown's Burden") is acceptable and we can live with it, because that would be playing right into the hands of the congenitally addicted spenders, namely Labour. I suspect that in 2020, after further cuts, there still will be another 30% to 40% left that refuses to budge. What will he say in 2020? God knows why should he care in 2015?

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 09:41 AM

The future Mr Mountain of Joy is certainly not of a rosy hue. However, I will be dead and my children's children can deal with the problem you see I come from the most selfish of generations. "Live now and let others pay later is our maxim" and this has long been adopted as the battle cry of the left, now we find that the right are playing a similar tune, but singing words that do not chime with tune.

Affa

Dec 5 2014, 11:18 AM

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 08:15 PM

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..........

I'm guessing selling it off cheap as soon as it starts making money again is where the criticisms are aimed ........ but George needs the money now!

ACH1967

Dec 4 2014, 03:25 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 01:58 PM

HIGHWAY

Dec 4 2014, 09:43 AM

Is there another person,or party who can fix the problem in your mind ?

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!

I don't think much of the Tory solution.

What was Labours solution again?

Different cuts.

Tytoalba

Dec 5 2014, 08:49 PM

ACH1967

Dec 4 2014, 03:25 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 01:58 PM

HIGHWAY

Dec 4 2014, 09:43 AM

Is there another person,or party who can fix the problem in your mind ?

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!

I don't think much of the Tory solution.

What was Labours solution again?

Different cuts.

Our country's immediate problems are all to do with money, Governments income and debt , followed by public demands and expectations.

The government has no money, except that which they collect or have collected from the taxpayers
The government can only meet our expectations from the tax payers money, and we the taxpayers are unwilling to lower our expectations or pay more taxes or towards our own needs. The economy cannot grow year in year out forever , and we will have further recessions over which we have little control over.

The answer to our debts, and managing our needs, is to lower expectations, pay more in taxes, clear the debts, and reduce expenditure over all. except where it can be properly funded
Will that happen?
Not if we play party politics, with everyone blaming someone else, not addressing the issues directly, not expecting a constantly rising standard of living, making promises that cannot be kept, and not willing to contribute more towards our own individual needs as they arise.

In other words , back to basics.

Tigger

Dec 5 2014, 09:00 PM

Tytoalba

Dec 5 2014, 08:49 PM

ACH1967

Dec 4 2014, 03:25 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 01:58 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepa 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!

I don't think much of the Tory solution.

What was Labours solution again?

Different cuts.

Our country's immediate problems are all to do with money, Governments income and debt , followed by public demands and expectations.

The government has no money, except that which they collect or have collected from the taxpayers
The government can only meet our expectations from the tax payers money, and we the taxpayers are unwilling to lower our expectations or pay more taxes or towards our own needs. The economy cannot grow year in year out forever , and we will have further recessions over which we have little control over.

The answer to our debts, and managing our needs, is to lower expectations, pay more in taxes, clear the debts, and reduce expenditure over all. except where it can be properly funded
Will that happen?
Not if we play party politics, with everyone blaming someone else, not addressing the issues directly, not expecting a constantly rising standard of living, making promises that cannot be kept, and not willing to contribute more towards our own individual needs as they arise.

In other words , back to basics.

What are these basics and how are you going to enforce it on the better off?

Tytoalba

Dec 5 2014, 09:23 PM

Tigger

Dec 5 2014, 09:00 PM

Tytoalba

Dec 5 2014, 08:49 PM

ACH1967

Dec 4 2014, 03:25 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepa further 25% cut to spending on public services?

Our country's immediate problems are all to do with money, Governments income and debt , followed by public demands and expectations.

The government has no money, except that which they collect or have collected from the taxpayers
The government can only meet our expectations from the tax payers money, and we the taxpayers are unwilling to lower our expectations or pay more taxes or towards our own needs. The economy cannot grow year in year out forever , and we will have further recessions over which we have little control over.

The answer to our debts, and managing our needs, is to lower expectations, pay more in taxes, clear the debts, and reduce expenditure over all. except where it can be properly funded
Will that happen?
Not if we play party politics, with everyone blaming someone else, not addressing the issues directly, not expecting a constantly rising standard of living, making promises that cannot be kept, and not willing to contribute more towards our own individual needs as they arise.

In other words , back to basics.

What are these basics and how are you going to enforce it on the better off?

Why just the better off?
The debt and spending is a problem for all of us to deal with. It is a universal national debt, and the demands are being made by almost everyone, except perhaps the better, off who for the most part attend to their own needs from their own means, even when we expect the solutions to be found by them, and from them.

Tigger

Dec 5 2014, 09:00 PM

Tytoalba

Dec 5 2014, 08:49 PM

ACH1967

Dec 4 2014, 03:25 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 01:58 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepa 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!

I don't think much of the Tory solution.

What was Labours solution again?

Different cuts.

Our country's immediate problems are all to do with money, Governments income and debt , followed by public demands and expectations.

The government has no money, except that which they collect or have collected from the taxpayers
The government can only meet our expectations from the tax payers money, and we the taxpayers are unwilling to lower our expectations or pay more taxes or towards our own needs. The economy cannot grow year in year out forever , and we will have further recessions over which we have little control over.

The answer to our debts, and managing our needs, is to lower expectations, pay more in taxes, clear the debts, and reduce expenditure over all. except where it can be properly funded
Will that happen?
Not if we play party politics, with everyone blaming someone else, not addressing the issues directly, not expecting a constantly rising standard of living, making promises that cannot be kept, and not willing to contribute more towards our own individual needs as they arise.

In other words , back to basics.

What are these basics and how are you going to enforce it on the better off?

Tigger

Dec 5 2014, 08:34 PM

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 08:54 AM

I suspect Osborne's stance is much to do with votes and avoiding the thought that our Mountain of Debt ("Brown's Burden") is acceptable and we can live with it, because that would be playing right into the hands of the congenitally addicted spenders, namely Labour. I suspect that in 2020, after further cuts, there still will be another 30% to 40% left that refuses to budge. What will he say in 2020? God knows why should he care in 2015?

It seems at times you live in a parallel universe to the rest of us such is your eagerness to dump the entire stinking economy on the shoulders of Brown & Co! Let us not kid ourselves here we have had the neo liberal party in power since the mid eighties and economic policy remains completely unchanged, in fact Osborne has just picked up where Brown left off, he has virtually doubled the national debt in a single term, created a skilless recovery and ensured the parasites who caused the present disease not only survive but actually flourish on the back of further taxpayer subsidies!

Quite where we find a politician who has the guts to wean us off of debt servitude god only knows.

C-too

Dec 5 2014, 11:03 PM

Tigger

Dec 5 2014, 09:00 PM

Tytoalba

Dec 5 2014, 08:49 PM

ACH1967

Dec 4 2014, 03:25 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepa further 25% cut to spending on public services?

Our country's immediate problems are all to do with money, Governments income and debt , followed by public demands and expectations.

The government has no money, except that which they collect or have collected from the taxpayers
The government can only meet our expectations from the tax payers money, and we the taxpayers are unwilling to lower our expectations or pay more taxes or towards our own needs. The economy cannot grow year in year out forever , and we will have further recessions over which we have little control over.

The answer to our debts, and managing our needs, is to lower expectations, pay more in taxes, clear the debts, and reduce expenditure over all. except where it can be properly funded
Will that happen?
Not if we play party politics, with everyone blaming someone else, not addressing the issues directly, not expecting a constantly rising standard of living, making promises that cannot be kept, and not willing to contribute more towards our own individual needs as they arise.

In other words , back to basics.

What are these basics and how are you going to enforce it on the better off?

I don't think "back to basics" includes the better off, they/we just continue on as usual.

RJD

Dec 6 2014, 09:20 AM

C2 you would be better off forgetting the white-wash for past failures and preaching a message of how a future Labour Gov. is going to create real jobs and rebalance the economy, as nobody out there believes your party of choice has any ideas.

papasmurf

Dec 6 2014, 09:22 AM

RJD

Dec 6 2014, 09:20 AM

C2 you would be better off forgetting the white-wash for past failures and preaching a message of how a future Labour Gov. is going to create real jobs and rebalance the economy, as nobody out there believes your party of choice has any ideas.

The current shower in power seems to have no idea either.

RJD

Dec 6 2014, 09:10 AM

Tigger

Dec 5 2014, 08:34 PM

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 08:54 AM

I suspect Osborne's stance is much to do with votes and avoiding the thought that our Mountain of Debt ("Brown's Burden") is acceptable and we can live with it, because that would be playing right into the hands of the congenitally addicted spenders, namely Labour. I suspect that in 2020, after further cuts, there still will be another 30% to 40% left that refuses to budge. What will he say in 2020? God knows why should he care in 2015?

It seems at times you live in a parallel universe to the rest of us such is your eagerness to dump the entire stinking economy on the shoulders of Brown & Co! Let us not kid ourselves here we have had the neo liberal party in power since the mid eighties and economic policy remains completely unchanged, in fact Osborne has just picked up where Brown left off, he has virtually doubled the national debt in a single term, created a skilless recovery and ensured the parasites who caused the present disease not only survive but actually flourish on the back of further taxpayer subsidies!

Quite where we find a politician who has the guts to wean us off of debt servitude god only knows.

Me thinks you are confused as to NL's role in creating the difficulties we find ourselves.


You say you want a balanced economy, but you argue against everything necessary to achieve such in the global market place with all it's Treaties and obligations we find ourself in today. The precursor to rebalancing is ridding ourselves of that part of the Public Sector which we cannot afford as it is consuming the very resources required elsewhere. Got it?
Tig. what you want is not in the gift of some Politician's magic wand. Osborne talks the talk necessary, but I doubt he can deliver and I suspect he doubts it too, but as money is cheap!
Me thinks you exist in a parallel Universe where you think that we can rebalance the economy, at the same time continue to tax and spend at one of the highest levels in the EU and continue to push up the size of Brown's Burden. I do not see how? Maybe you should try and explain.

Quote:

 

Whilst the die was cast by their predecessors the great debt binge was accelerated by Brown from 2000 onwards.

Quote:

 

NL oversaw continued public and private borrows to fuel current consumption.

Quote:

 

During this debt fueled binge Brown saw a massive reduction in manufacturing, not just jobs but value of output too.

Quote:

 

Whilst the economy has not been balanced in any shape or form for a very long time, Brown gave it a massive tilt to such an extent that Politicians are frit of that which has to be done.

Quote:

 

Rebalancing means a change from Brown's preferred debt fuelled consumption towards greater production

RJD

Dec 6 2014, 09:10 AM

Tigger

Dec 5 2014, 08:34 PM

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 08:54 AM

I suspect Osborne's stance is much to do with votes and avoiding the thought that our Mountain of Debt ("Brown's Burden") is acceptable and we can live with it, because that would be playing right into the hands of the congenitally addicted spenders, namely Labour. I suspect that in 2020, after further cuts, there still will be another 30% to 40% left that refuses to budge. What will he say in 2020? God knows why should he care in 2015?

It seems at times you live in a parallel universe to the rest of us such is your eagerness to dump the entire stinking economy on the shoulders of Brown & Co! Let us not kid ourselves here we have had the neo liberal party in power since the mid eighties and economic policy remains completely unchanged, in fact Osborne has just picked up where Brown left off, he has virtually doubled the national debt in a single term, created a skilless recovery and ensured the parasites who caused the present disease not only survive but actually flourish on the back of further taxpayer subsidies!

Quite where we find a politician who has the guts to wean us off of debt servitude god only knows.

Me thinks you are confused as to NL's role in creating the difficulties we find ourselves. Whilst the die was cast by their predecessors the great debt binge was accelerated by Brown from 2000 onwards. NL oversaw continued public and private borrows to fuel current consumption. During this debt fueled binge Brown saw a massive reduction in manufacturing, not just jobs but value of output too. Whilst the economy has not been balanced in any shape or form for a very long time, Brown gave it a massive tilt to such an extent that Politicians are frit of that which has to be done.
You say you want a balanced economy, but you argue against everything necessary to achieve such in the global market place with all it's Treaties and obligations we find ourself in today. Rebalancing means a change from Brown's preferred debt fuelled consumption towards greater production and you are not going to achieve the latter if you inhibit investments in such. The precursor to rebalancing is ridding ourselves of that part of the Public Sector which we cannot afford as it is consuming the very resources required elsewhere. Got it?
Tig. what you want is not in the gift of some Politician's magic wand. Osborne talks the talk necessary, but I doubt he can deliver and I suspect he doubts it too, but as money is cheap!
Me thinks you exist in a parallel Universe where you think that we can rebalance the economy, at the same time continue to tax and spend at one of the highest levels in the EU and continue to push up the size of Brown's Burden. I do not see how? Maybe you should try and explain.

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 01:56 PM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

There is enough money within the NHS budget they just need to learn to organise themselves and spend with some prudence. I do not think that Joe Public would be happy to see more of their taxes, at basic rates, swallowed up into the black hole that calls itself the NHS, they want others to pay. It is rather stupid to give the NHS more and more financial resources on demand without obtaining efficiency improvements and also understanding what the NHS is there for? We have little or no debate on the objectives of the NHS and the left seem to have the lazy idea that whatever they want to spend on whatever is by definition OK therefore cut them a cheque. Such attitudes are not in the long term interests of Patients, but might suit employees.