[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Dave

If Labour were economically credible we wouldn't be in so much trouble.

The simple fact is politicians have been buying your vote with your money for years.

i think i have made my views very clear on that matter .Whilst i accept NL has some responsibility in the matter, they are far from being the sole culprits

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

i think i have made my views very clear on that matter .Whilst i accept NL has some responsibility in the matter, they are far from being the sole culprits

Wow that's real progress!

NL were both complicit in the causes (banking de-regulation) and to blame for not balancing their books properly. They are not solely to blame for the recession or credit crunch but they certainly hold some responsibility for our ability to get out of the hole were in.
If we'd been left with some money in the kitty or (much) smaller structural deficit, infrastructural investment as a course out of recession may have been a legitimate solution.
Keynesianism needs saving in the good times, few governments ever do this as the electorate wants any and all money available spend on them and now.

We're in a hole and I can't see how digging is gonna help us, it will be interesting to see what happens in the US now that the government subsidies are running out.

[dovercat]

According to the CBI and the coalition government the UK needs £200 billion worth of infrastructure improvements to increase UK competitiveness. According to the coalition government we also need more housing.

In a economic downturn do we not have the resources to do these things sitting unemployed or underemployed, if we have the spare capacity in the economy why not put it to use building a better future.

How would making the needed improvments to UK infrastructure and building the needed housing be harmful to the UK economy?

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by dovercat

According to the CBI and the coalition government the UK needs £200 billion worth of infrastructure improvements to increase UK competitiveness. According to the coalition government we also need more housing.

In a economic downturn do we not have the resources to do these things sitting unemployed or underemployed, if we have the spare capacity in the economy why not put it to use building a better future.

How would making the needed improvments to UK infrastructure and building the needed housing be harmful to the UK economy?

Building houses would not increase UK competitiveness.

Infrastructure improvements? That's a different ballgame - but what does it mean? Very nebulous wording!

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Building houses would not increase UK competitiveness.

In the short term I would expect a collapse in the housing market to be disasterous. So best avoided. But a long term drop in house prices in real terms I think would be good for the economy.

People need houses to live in. Improving worker mobility and improving quality of life might increase productivity.

Reducing the cost of housing in the long term could result in less earned income going on mortgages or rent with more available for consumer consumption of goods and services, so resulting in more demand in the economy.

It might also reduce the landlord class, possibly making these people more productive in the economy. Money might also be invested more productively.

Houses in the long term being lower value in real terms could also result in less debt in the economy. The house being a major asset on which money is borrowed and which gives consumers a false feeling of wealth.

More housing, lower housing costs could also result in less government money being spent on housing benefit currently about £20 billion a year. That saving could be used to for example lower VAT, a £10 billion saving would be equivalent to being able to lower VAT by about 1.9%.

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Infrastructure improvements? That's a different ballgame - but what does it mean? Very nebulous wording!

The CBI £200 billion infrastructure list seems to be mostly or soley roads. Although I would of thought other infrastructure projects resulting in things like faster Internet to cheaper energy and water would also help competitiveness.

I would hope fulfilling the wish lists of UK businesses as far as infrastructure would be a good thing for the economy in the long term.

[dovercat]

Sidicks I take it the UK economy failing to recover from the recession and flat lining for two years followed by us now going into a double dip recession, has not been enough to shake you confidence in the merit of coalitions economic policy.

Having a economy failing to grow or shrinking is a great way to make your spending less affordable. So should we increase the cuts, or do you think the coalition will eventually get fed up of failing to meet it's economic predictions, lose confidence in it's economic policy, switch to plan B or A+ or whatever. Making economic growth the priority rather than cuts.

[Sephiroth0000]

I'm no genius and do not understand half of it but the only thing I cannot get is why the coalition is hammering the average Joe so hard which in turn is destroying all and any chance of a recovery. And what's all this about a double dip recession? We never got out of it in the first place! I do not agree with hitting the super rich as thy have earned it and made sacrifices at some point in their life's I imagine but they should be made to pay their way for starters and secondly stop hitting the working public so hard. It's simple math if the average joe has more money he will spend more money which in turn helps the recovery, keeps people in work, businesses in production and stimulates the economy. As a father of 4 at one point I could take my children either cinema or for a family meal once a week.... I can't anymore and have not done in along time because of the times but I'm sure I am just one of many millions up and down the country and that all adds up to alot of money and investment in the economy that is missing. If I can understand that surely so can Cameron?

I must stress these are merely my opinions so people don't go too hard on me lol.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by dovercat

Sidicks I take it the UK economy failing to recover from the recession and flat lining for two years followed by us now going into a double dip recession, has not been enough to shake you confidence in the merit of coalitions economic policy.

Not the overall policy of getting the deficit down over the specified period. As mentioned above, whether the exact cuts are the right one is less clear but of course everyone is hapopy to see which cuts are 'wrong' without saying what should be cut instead.

Despite ongoing crisis in the Eurozone, our chief export area, the Coalition has still managed to meet the recent borrowing target.

As has has been said before, we you have this much debt and an economy which has been built on excess public spending and debt, then inevitably the correction will take time to resolve.

Originally Posted by dovercat

Having a economy failing to grow or shrinking is a great way to make your spending less affordable. So should we increase the cuts, or do you think the coalition will eventually get fed up of failing to meet it's economic predictions, lose confidence in it's economic policy, switch to plan B or A+ or whatever. Making economic growth the priority rather than cuts.

The economy will tick along (very) slowly for the time being while governments, individuals and corporates readjust to a new sustainable world.

Unfortuantely, to appease the masses, the government have to prodcue unrealistic growth expectations which they are inevitably not going to meet with a very strong tail wind. Currently there are a number of head winds!

The point is we have a huge deficit and need to make significant cuts - growth is nowhere near sufficient to close the gap.

Sidicks

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I'm no genius and do not understand half of it but the only thing I cannot get is why the coalition is hammering the average Joe so hard which in turn is destroying all and any chance of a recovery.

Please explain how the Coalition is 'hammering the average Joe so hard'?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

And what's all this about a double dip recession? We never got out of it in the first place! I do not agree with hitting the super rich as thy have earned it and made sacrifices at some point in their life's I imagine but they should be made to pay their way for starters and secondly stop hitting the working public so hard. It's simple math if the average joe has more money he will spend more money which in turn helps the recovery, keeps people in work, businesses in production and stimulates the economy.

Where does the money come from in the first place?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

As a father of 4 at one point I could take my children either cinema or for a family meal once a week.... I can't anymore and have not done in along time because of the times but I'm sure I am just one of many millions up and down the country and that all adds up to alot of money and investment in the economy that is missing. If I can understand that surely so can Cameron?

I think you need to understand the difference between investment and consumption!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I must stress these are merely my opinions so people don't go too hard on me lol.

No problem - it's good to discuss these things!

[Sephiroth0000]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Please explain how the Coalition is 'hammering the average Joe so hard'?

Where does the money come from in the first place?

I think you need to understand the difference between investment and consumption!

No problem - it's good to discuss these things!

Increase in VAT, petrol rises (the governments take from petrol is ridiculous and the highest in the world I believe, please do correct me if I am mistaken), constant bailing out the EU, rising costs in rent, council tax and public services which is accountable due to the cuts made in past budgets and government spending (the difference has to be accounted for somewhere) ... Regarding first quote

Money has to be spent in order for money to be made. Making cuts left right and centre stops more money being spent I agree but does not help bring more money in. It's like a pawnbroker selling second hand goods but not buying anymore because he can't shift current stock. Eventually the business goes under, economy is no different... Regarding second quote

Investment and consumption indeed are two different things but you cannot have one without the other. Whether it be going cinema, family meal, day out, etc you are putting into the pot which pays wages, bills, etc which is then reinvested pretty much the same way over and over again. If businesses do well they then expand creating more jobs, more opportunities which can help create investment opportunities... Regarding third quote

I do think I look at things too simple but maybe that's the problem with this country. Really hope I have not made myself look stupid.

[namuk]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Building houses would not increase UK competitiveness.

just means more hose pipe bans mate.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

Increase in VAT

Agreed that VAT has increased but only by 2.5% and only on 'luxury' items.

The reason that people are not buying goods e.g. TVs is not because the VAT has increased by 2.5% making a £1,000 TV £25 more expensive. The reason is that they can no longer readily get credit to buy the TV in the first place, meaning thet can't really afford it!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

, petrol rises (the governments take from petrol is ridiculous and the highest in the world I believe, please do correct me if I am mistaken),

Petrol is hugely expensive, but the Coalition removed one of the tax increases planned by the previous government - I'm not sure you can blame the current government for the current price of petrol, not least because it was the previous government that got addicted to the high tax generated.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

constant bailing out the EU,

How much has been spent bailing out the EU - how much is actual cost and how much is a guarantee or a loan to be repaid?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

rising costs in rent,

Who is increasing rent?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

council tax

Hasn't council tax been frozen for most people?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

and public services which is accountable due to the cuts made in past budgets and government spending (the difference has to be accounted for somewhere) ... Regarding first quote

What public spending cuts have been made in the past?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

Money has to be spent in order for money to be made. Making cuts left right and centre stops more money being spent I agree but does not help bring more money in. It's like a pawnbroker selling second hand goods but not buying anymore because he can't shift current stock. Eventually the business goes under, economy is no different... Regarding second quote

Except public spending is actually increasing year after year, and we are spending £150bn more every year than we earn - surely some hardship and cutbacks are inevitable??

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

Investment and consumption indeed are two different things but you cannot have one without the other. Whether it be going cinema, family meal, day out, etc you are putting into the pot which pays wages, bills, etc which is then reinvested pretty much the same way over and over again. If businesses do well they then expand creating more jobs, more opportunities which can help create investment opportunities... Regarding third quote

Agreed to some extent, but the balance is all wrong. We have huge public and private debt and that needs to be addressed. People need to re-assess what is affordable, and that means slower growth in the meantime.

There is no money to invest!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I do think I look at things too simple but maybe that's the problem with this country. Really hope I have not made myself look stupid.

Certainly not, you make some good points.

The scary thing is that despite income taxes, high VAT, huge fuel duty, high council tax etc etc, the government's income is still 25-30% lower than it needs to be to fund the outgo.

This shows how out of control the spending currently is!

[Sephiroth0000]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Agreed that VAT has increased but only by 2.5% and only on 'luxury' items.

The reason that people are not buying goods e.g. TVs is not because the VAT has increased by 2.5% making a £1,000 TV £25 more expensive. The reason is that they can no longer readily get credit to buy the TV in the first place, meaning thet can't really afford it!

Petrol is hugely expensive, but the Coalition removed one of the tax increases planned by the previous government - I'm not sure you can blame the current government for the current price of petrol, not least because it was the previous government that got addicted to the high tax generated.

How much has been spent bailing out the EU - how much is actual cost and how much is a guarantee or a loan to be repaid?

Who is increasing rent?

Hasn't council tax been frozen for most people?

What public spending cuts have been made in the past?

Except public spending is actually increasing year after year, and we are spending £150bn more every year than we earn - surely some hardship and cutbacks are inevitable??

Agreed to some extent, but the balance is all wrong. We have huge public and private debt and that needs to be addressed. People need to re-assess what is affordable, and that means slower growth in the meantime.

There is no money to invest!

Certainly not, you make some good points.
[/QUOTE]

Public lending is increasing and that in my eyes is because all actual cash is accounted for in bills. Me personally I have only one credit card and that's for both me and my wife and yes cutbacks are indeed needed and should of been enforced years ago in my eyes but it is the nature and speed of these cutbacks that I feel is the problem. People are going to keep borrowing and spending more then they earn because their costs of living have gone up and their actual income barely covers the basics. I properly am wrong but the way Cameron and Osborne is doing it is wrong. It's like taking a smoker who has gone from 20 fags a day to 5... Some it will work with but the majority will crash and burn and that's what's happened here. It's only going to get worst. And I know this because of the nature of my job

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

Public lending is increasing and that in my eyes is because all actual cash is accounted for in bills. Me personally I have only one credit card and that's for both me and my wife and yes cutbacks are indeed needed and should of been enforced years ago in my eyes but it is the nature and speed of these cutbacks that I feel is the problem.

But that is the point, we aren't cutting, we are still spending more each year!!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

People are going to keep borrowing and spending more then they earn because their costs of living have gone up and their actual income barely covers the basics.

People need to re-evaluate what is necessary and what the 'basics' really mean.

Luxury items, Sky TV, nights out etc etc are not 'basics'!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I properly am wrong but the way Cameron and Osborne is doing it is wrong. It's like taking a smoker who has gone from 20 fags a day to 5... Some it will work with but the majority will crash and burn and that's what's happened here. It's only going to get worst. And I know this because of the nature of my job

To continue your analogy, what we are actually doing is taking someone on 20 fags a day, who has been promised 23 fags next year and we are restricting them to 'just' 21...

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I'm no genius and do not understand half of it but the only thing I cannot get is why the coalition is hammering the average Joe so hard which in turn is destroying all and any chance of a recovery. And what's all this about a double dip recession? We never got out of it in the first place! I do not agree with hitting the super rich as thy have earned it and made sacrifices at some point in their life's I imagine but they should be made to pay their way for starters and secondly stop hitting the working public so hard. It's simple math if the average joe has more money he will spend more money which in turn helps the recovery, keeps people in work, businesses in production and stimulates the economy. As a father of 4 at one point I could take my children either cinema or for a family meal once a week.... I can't anymore and have not done in along time because of the times but I'm sure I am just one of many millions up and down the country and that all adds up to alot of money and investment in the economy that is missing. If I can understand that surely so can Cameron?

I must stress these are merely my opinions so people don't go too hard on me lol.

tbf none of us our geniuses ,although i think there are one or two here who might think they are verging on being one
as for the recession , the previous Government did manage to pull us out of it but having lost the election werent able to see the fruits of their endevours fully takes place.Instead we got a coalition which set about a slash and burn policy which severely damaged any chance of recovery as we are now running for almost a year with virtually no growth, hence the double dip. Millions out of work and nowhere near enough jobs to fill the gap.It could have been worse if the Tories had won an outright majority so i guess we should be grateful for that as they are wedded to an ideology which has at its core the rolling back of the state in as many areas as possible,including the NHS
The rich have not been hit particularly as they employ clever accountants who severely limit their tax due in various avoidance scams.Many, if not most, pay nothing like what they should do, so its left up to the rest of us to pick up the tab

You are of course right that given more money people will spend more but its also about confidence,A lot of people are plain scared of losing their jobs so are reluctant to spend in a way they might have don in the past.thats why i and many others believe the current strategy is plain wrong.The cuts should have been done over a prolonged period over which sustained growth would have put us in a much stronger position to do so .I admit this is a matter of opinion as others think differently.
What is happening is a criminal waste but i am hopeful that, come the election, the Tories will be punished.Unfortunately a new admin will have to make good the damage done much as it had to do back in the nineties

You are free to express your opinions here as well all are but please dont feel intimidated by anyone.Post your piece for it is of much value as anyone else's

[Sephiroth0000]

Originally Posted by sidicks

But that is the point, we aren't cutting, we are still spending more each year!!

People need to re-evaluate what is necessary and what the 'basics' really mean.

Luxury items, Sky TV, nights out etc etc are not 'basics'!

To continue your analogy, what we are actually doing is taking someone on 20 fags a day, who has been promised 23 fags next year and we are restricting them to 'just' 21...

I meant basics in the sense of rent, council tax, shopping, etc. I agree SkyTv And what not are not essential and not the basics in my eyes. I spend £50 a month on my Tv, Phone, mobile and broadband (virgin) but I don't drink or smoke and if things got bad it would be the first thing to go. And to continue your analogy which continues my analogy it's what happens now that reflects what's going to happen tomorrow and yes it more then likely can work and will but there is also a chance it will fail and at the moment it looks like its going to fail. Any great leader who has achieved success has done so purely on the faith that their people have in them. The majority of this country have no faith in Osbourne or Cameron.

The reason I feel this also is because when Cameron does get it even and he will the public will hate him to such a point they will go back to Labour which means it happens all over again.

[Sephiroth0000]

I better start sorting the house out before the misses comes back lol but in short the cuts were too fast and too much in my eyes. The argument can be had by both sides but I still believe a slower and less intensive approach would of been the better way to go about it and given a more guaranteed rate of success where at the moment as it stands it can go either way. I still think we are doomed and the Coalitions plans are going to fail.

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Despite ongoing crisis in the Eurozone, our chief export area, the Coalition has still managed to meet the recent borrowing target.

You forgot to mention that total borrowing forecasts for the term of this government have been revised up and continue to be revised up.

However focusing on borrowing targets rather than growth targets is rather my point.

Originally Posted by sidicks

As has has been said before, we you have this much debt and an economy which has been built on excess public spending and debt, then inevitably the correction will take time to resolve.

The spending was not seen as excessive at the time. It is now known to have been excessive in hindsight.

The problem is primarily that we had a severe recession causing borrowing to leap up from 40% of GDP and resulting in lower GDP forecasts so less predicted future income to pay our debts.

Do you view a smaller UK economy as a necessary correction. I would like to see the UK economy grow.

Originally Posted by sidicks

The economy will tick along (very) slowly for the time being while governments, individuals and corporates readjust to a new sustainable world.

While other countries not obsessed with austerity, recover from the recession and race ahead.

I do not see it as the UK embracing a sustainable economy. I see it as a economy dead in the water, going nowhere.

Originally Posted by sidicks

Unfortuantely, to appease the masses, the government have to prodcue unrealistic growth expectations which they are inevitably not going to meet with a very strong tail wind. Currently there are a number of head winds!

You think the chancellor and the OBR are purposefully getting their predictions wrong. So they miss their targets. They are choosing to appear incompetent.

If global or eurozone headwinds are to blame, why are other countries doing better than us as far as economic growth. We look to be a object lesson in the stupidity of austerity minus a credible plan for growth, along with all the other countries that have gone down the route of austerity.

Originally Posted by sidicks

The point is we have a huge deficit and need to make significant cuts - growth is nowhere near sufficient to close the gap.

Yes we have a structural deficit. That we need to have a credible plan to eliminate in the long term.

But the size of the structural deficit, and the severity of the cuts needed are dependent on the expected economic growth.

Cutting government spending during a economic downturn is self defeating if doing so lowers economic growth. That lower economic growth results in a bigger structural deficit, if the answer then is to cut spending further it looks to be like a downward spiral. Austerity causing lack of economic growth, so more austerity is introduced, causing lack of economic growth, etc... A economy going nowhere or shrinking.

The key objective should be economic growth. With a credible long term plan to fix the structural deficit seen as a necessary evil.

[Sephiroth0000]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

tbf none of us our geniuses ,although i think there are one or two here who might think they are verging on being one
as for the recession , the previous Government did manage to pull us out of it but having lost the election werent able to see the fruits of their endevours fully takes place.Instead we got a coalition which set about a slash and burn policy which severely damaged any chance of recovery as we are now running for almost a year with virtually no growth, hence the double dip. Millions out of work and nowhere near enough jobs to fill the gap.It could have been worse if the Tories had won an outright majority so i guess we should be grateful for that as they are wedded to an ideology which has at its core the rolling back of the state in as many areas as possible,including the NHS
The rich have not been hit particularly as they employ clever accountants who severely limit their tax due in various avoidance scams.Many, if not most, pay nothing like what they should do, so its left up to the rest of us to pick up the tab

You are of course right that given more money people will spend more but its also about confidence,A lot of people are plain scared of losing their jobs so are reluctant to spend in a way they might have don in the past.thats why i and many others believe the current strategy is plain wrong.The cuts should have been done over a prolonged period over which sustained growth would have put us in a much stronger position to do so .I admit this is a matter of opinion as others think differently.
What is happening is a criminal waste but i am hopeful that, come the election, the Tories will be punished.Unfortunately a new admin will have to make good the damage done much as it had to do back in the nineties

You are free to express your opinions here as well all are but please dont feel intimidated by anyone.Post your piece for it is of much value as anyone else's

Thankyou very much for that like I said before my views are quite simple but maybe that's what we need

[Sephiroth0000]

Originally Posted by dovercat

You forgot to mention that total borrowing forecasts for the term of this government have been revised up and continue to be revised up.

However focusing on borrowing targets rather than growth targets is rather my point.

The spending was not seen as excessive at the time. It is now known to have been excessive in hindsight.

The problem is primarily that we had a severe recession causing borrowing to leap up from 40% of GDP and resulting in lower GDP forecasts so less predicted future income to pay our debts.

Do you view a smaller UK economy as a necessary correction. I would like to see the UK economy grow.

While other countries not obsessed with austerity, recover from the recession and race ahead.

I do not see it as the UK embracing a sustainable economy. I see it as a economy dead in the water, going nowhere.

You think the chancellor and the OBR are purposefully getting their predictions wrong. So they miss their targets. They are choosing to appear incompetent.

If global or eurozone headwinds are to blame, why are other countries doing better than us as far as economic growth. We look to be a object lesson in the stupidity of austerity minus a credible plan for growth, along with all the other countries that have gone down the route of austerity.

Yes we have a structural deficit. That we need to have a credible plan to eliminate in the long term.

But the size of the structural deficit, and the severity of the cuts needed are dependent on the expected economic growth.

Cutting government spending during a economic downturn is self defeating if doing lowers economic growth. That lower economic growth results in a bigger structural deficit, if the answer then is to cut spending further it looks to be like a downward spiral. Austerity causing lack of economic growth, so more austerity is introduced, causing lack of economic growth, etc... A economy going nowhere or shrinking.

Have you more or less just said in educated terms what I just said in simple terms lol? Just curious

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I meant basics in the sense of rent, council tax, shopping, etc. I agree SkyTv And what not are not essential and not the basics in my eyes.

There are certain people on here who would view these as essentials!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I spend £50 a month on my Tv, Phone, mobile and broadband (virgin) but I don't drink or smoke and if things got bad it would be the first thing to go.

Likewise, but many other people expect the state to look after them and aren;t prepared to make sacrifices of their own.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

And to continue your analogy which continues my analogy it's what happens now that reflects what's going to happen tomorrow and yes it more then likely can work and will but there is also a chance it will fail and at the moment it looks like its going to fail.

I think it is impossible to say. Certainly the solution to a debt crisis isn't to create more debt, so spending cuts are essential, as admitted by the previous government.

If you make smaller cuts slower, you have to make them for much longer - turning this into a 10 year recovery period not a 5 year one.

Given what is happening in Europe at the moment, it is naive to think that the 'spend our way out of travel' wouldn;t have put the country in even more trouble:
Significantly increasing debt
Significantly increasing interest rates
Knock-on impact on mortgages, reducing spending etc
Low growth
etc

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

Any great leader who has achieved success has done so purely on the faith that their people have in them. The majority of this country have no faith in Osbourne or Cameron.

The economic poilicy is right, the implementation of that policy may not be!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

The reason I feel this also is because when Cameron does get it even and he will the public will hate him to such a point they will go back to Labour which means it happens all over again.

That is a huge risk!

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

Have you more or less just said in educated terms what I just said in simple terms lol? Just curious

you're welcome

[Sephiroth0000]

Originally Posted by sidicks

There are certain people on here who would view these as essentials!

Likewise, but many other people expect the state to look after them and aren;t prepared to make sacrifices of their own.

I think it is impossible to say. Certainly the solution to a debt crisis isn't to create more debt, so spending cuts are essential, as admitted by the previous government.

If you make smaller cuts slower, you have to make them for much longer - turning this into a 10 year recovery period not a 5 year one.

Given what is happening in Europe at the moment, it is naive to think that the 'spend our way out of travel' wouldn;t have put the country in even more trouble:
Significantly increasing debt
Significantly increasing interest rates
Knock-on impact on mortgages, reducing spending etc
Low growth
etc

The economic poilicy is right, the implementation of that policy may not be!

That is a huge risk!

Yes but why work when one is hammered so hard for working and has a better quality of living on the state? I would be £200 a week better off if my wife and I did not work. I work because that's what I was raised to do. It's a mans job to work. And yes smaller cuts make a longer period but a higher success rate. We can look at this as something that may work with the coalition but we also have to take into account it can fail and if it does we are screwed and then its going to hit the fan bigtime and we will not recover regardless of what plan we have.

[Sephiroth0000]

That and I would not want my kids to see as a lazy bum.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

Yes but why work when one is hammered so hard for working and has a better quality of living on the state? I would be £200 a week better off if my wife and I did not work.

Which suggests to me that benefits are too generous, so that's an easy way we could save a few £bn!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

I work because that's what I was raised to do. It's a mans job to work.

Agreed - those that can support themselves should so so.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

And yes smaller cuts make a longer period but a higher success rate.

There is no evidence to suggest a higher success rate, you've just made that up.

If debt is paid pack too slowly, interest rates increase and the debt soon gets out of control.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

We can look at this as something that may work with the coalition but we also have to take into account it can fail and if it does we are screwed and then its going to hit the fan bigtime and we will not recover regardless of what plan we have.

If we don't cut spending, we will lose our AAA credit rating, borrowing costs will rise significantly and then we will be in a far worse state than we are now!

Sidicks

[Sephiroth0000]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Which suggests to me that benefits are too generous, so that's an easy way we could save a few £bn!

Agreed - those that can support themselves should so so.

There is no evidence to suggest a higher success rate, you've just made that up.

If debt is paid pack too slowly, interest rates increase and the debt soon gets out of control.

If we don't cut spending, we will lose our AAA credit rating, borrowing costs will rise significantly and then we will be in a far worse state than we are now!

Sidicks

Yes one can suggest that benefits are too generous or that too much is taken from those who work. Yes everyone should pay their way I agree completely but what about the millionaires who avoid tax? Where is the backlash on them?

How is it making it up? It's simple logic. Has it not occurred you to that rising taxes and the coalitions approach on the situation has helped drive some businesses out of business or made companies lay off thousands of workers which in toe makes more people unemployed, less people contributing and therefore costing more money that the government has to account for? Saying that train of thought is made up is no more then that of the governments. However debt being paid back at a slower rate does incur more interest I agree with you but at least it gets paid. What the government is doing is putting all money into one debt and allowing other problems to manifest in its place... Rising unemployment, no growth in the economy, businesses shutting down but to name a few. Has it not occurred to you that we could start out slow and then make bigger payments down the line when we are more stable?

With our economy the way it is we will lose our AAA rating down the line anyway. Not so much because of our debt because we will have that in some sort of order but because as a country our economy will not earn enough which in turn comes down to the fast and somewhat thoughtless actions of this government and the lack of growth which they have not stimulated at all

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth0000

With our economy the way it is we will lose our AAA rating down the line anyway. Not so much because of our debt because we will have that in some sort of order but because as a country our economy will not earn enough which in turn comes down to the fast and somewhat thoughtless actions of this government and the lack of growth which they have not stimulated at all

Good post.

Your confidence has grown amazingly over the last few posts, as well as the strength of your opinions.

Communicating with Sidicks has also enhanced the way you put your points across, it's all beginning to come out.

Wonderful to see such rapid development on the political front!

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Which suggests to me that benefits are too generous, so that's an easy way we could save a few £bn!

really?? And on which planet would £71 pw for a single, £111 for a couple person be described as generous? explain how savings can be made if those stripped of their meagre("too generous") benefits turn to crime so end up in prison?I am looking forward to reading your opinions on what kind of diet they can follow should their benefits be substantially reduced.Rat meat, cockroaches wit some dandelion leaves perhaps? And all for losing a job through no fault of their own.
All the while in parallel universe called banking sector ,the likes of Bob Diamond awards themselves disgustingly large salaries and bonuses

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

really?? And on which planet would £71 pw for a single, £111 for a couple person be described as generous?

If that was the only possible benefit of course that would not be generous, but as we know, that's just the start.

Sephiroth0000 has stated that he would be £200 a week better off if his wife and he did not work.

That's £10k a year extra from not working.

Something is wrong somewhere.

Originally Posted by la gran siete

explain how savings can be made if those stripped of their meagre("too generous") benefits turn to crime so end up in prison?I am looking forward to reading your opinions on what kind of diet they can follow should their benefits be substantially reduced.Rat meat, cockroaches wit some dandelion leaves perhaps? And all for losing a job through no fault of their own.

Nice use of emotive language (as usual), seems a bit far-fetched to me....

Originally Posted by la gran siete

All the while in parallel universe called banking sector ,the likes of Bob Diamond awards themselves disgustingly large salaries and bonuses

Private companies can do what they like - feel free to boycott Barclays if you don't approve!

Sidicks

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

If that was the only possible benefit of course that would not be generous, but as we know, that's just the start.

Sephiroth0000 has stated that he would be £200 a week better off if his wife and he did not work.

That's £10k a year extra from not working.

Something is wrong somewhere.


Nice use of emotive language (as usual), seems a bit far-fetched to me....




Private companies can do what they like - feel free to boycott Barclays if you don't approve!

Sidicks

what clearly needs to happen is not a race to the bottom but to make sure the benefits system is sufficiently weighted to those who are in work if they have families to support and not penalize those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs and are finding very difficult to find a replacement.
Emotive indeed and with good reason.Plunge people into a desperate situation and they will do desperate things

In which case benefit claimants can also do what they like