Breadline Britain.

[I1L2T3]

Well Nissan Honda and Toyota all set up major car plants in the UK whilst Margret Thatcher was PM. Several other major players like Toshiba built TV factories and the like around the same time.

 

In 1997 Gordon & Tony took over and in the early years after the Millenium were spending money and running up debt whist "improving services". So you would imagine there would be a massive list of multinationals who all moved here in those years too if they are attracted here by such things. Unfortunately I can't think of any who did.

 

Yes I have ideas, but as they don't involve chucking more borrowed money into the same hole that got us into the mess we're in you wouldn't be interested.

 

I've got my gold and property abroad just in case someone takes over the rains with the idea of borrowing us out of debt.

 

I am interested in what you have to say. And don't make the mistake of thinking I see this as a Tory vs Labour thing because I don't. I believe that both parties are devoid of ideas and both have amply demonstrated that.

 

Personally I can't see us getting out of this mess unless we have some kind of sustainable growth. And I think we need to invest to get that. And more importantly we also need to persuade private investors to come on board.

 

If we don't grow then the current policies are just like chucking money into a hole. If we use the household anology then it's like wasting your wages, borrowing more then wasting that too. But as least if you had used some of your wages (or borrowing) to upgrade your house like put a new roof on or re-wire it then at least you have something to show. If you lose your house because of your debt then at least the next occupier has a more economically viable asset.

[MrSmith]

Sadly, you actually could be right but not for the reasons I guess you think. Osborne has borrowed to pay for failure when he should have been borrowing to encourage growth. Maybe he's taken things too far in the wrong direction for us to recover.

 

 

Osborn is borrowing just to pay for the public sector over spends and commitments as well as a benefits system that it too generous and discourages work. We don’t have the money to invest until we cut the incompact spending and wastefulness in the public sector and the benefits system,

 

 

If it's one of the best then why is Gove changing it so radically?

 

Even Gove recognises the need to provide ongoing investment for schools infrastructure. It's why he announced over 250 priority schools building projects in 2010. Sadly it now seems that more than 200 of them will be financed through new PFI contracts

 

Sorry I was talking about universities, again where does the money come from to pay for new schools? We are having to use the private sector because the public sector is a massive money wasting machine.

 

 

 

I agree that non-productive borrowing is bad. That is what is so disappointing about Osborne's borrowing mayhem to pay for his abject policy failures.

 

A policy that is creating jobs is hardly a failure, I'm surprised with the mess and debts they inherited they have managed to keep us afloat, I’ expected us to go down the same path as some of our EU neighbours, and borrowing more money is sure fire way of sinking with them.

 

 

 

 

Who doesn't contribute? Are you talking about immigrants?

About 9 million working age people don't contribute and only 10% of tax payers contribute more into the system than they take out. It’s simply not sustainable to have a public sector that spends more than we receive in tax.

 

 

The UK. It's how major employers like Nissan have been brought in in the past. Government investment oils the wheels for such deals.

 

I agree, the problem is that the government doesn't have money to invest because of the commitments and over spend of the last government.

 

 

It's harsh reality. To recover we have to grow. If we don't invest or attract investment we won't grow. And if we don't grow we won't recover.

 

No we don't, everything would improve if the population shrank, housing costs would fall, the roads would be less congested, unemployment would be lower, public services would be able to manage a smaller population.

 

The austerity experiment is a failure that will hopefully never be repeated. It's an experiment that is driving more and more people beneath the breadline.

It’s not an experiment it’s an undesirable but necessary cause of action, it will take decades to fix the mess, not a couple of years, the government don’t have a magic wand.

[I1L2T3]

Osborn is borrowing just to pay for the public sector over spends and commitments as well as a benefits system that it too generous and discourages work. We don’t have the money to invest until we cut the incompact spending and wastefulness in the public sector and the benefits system,

 

 

 

 

Sorry I was talking about universities, again where does the money come from to pay for new schools? We are having to use the private sector because the public sector is a massive money wasting machine.

 

 

 

 

 

A policy that is creating jobs is hardly a failure, I'm surprised with the mess and debts they inherited they have managed to keep us afloat, I’ expected us to go down the same path as some of our EU neighbours, and borrowing more money is sure fire way of sinking with them.

 

 

 

 

 

About 9 million working age people don't contribute and only 10% of tax payers contribute more into the system than they take out. It’s simply not sustainable to have a public sector that spends more than we receive in tax.

 

 

 

 

I agree, the problem is that the government doesn't have money to invest because of the commitments and over spend of the last government.

 

 

 

 

No we don't, everything would improve if the population shrank, housing costs would fall, the roads would be less congested, unemployment would be lower, public services would be able to manage a smaller population.

 

 

It’s not an experiment it’s an undesirable but necessary cause of action, it will take decades to fix the mess, not a couple of years, the government don’t have a magic wand.

 

I won't argue with the idea that the public sector should be more efficient. But I will argue if people say we shouldn't invest in our infrastructure.

 

We have less UK universities in the top 100 worldwide. Last year we had nine. The year before we had twelve. Sheffield is one of the ones that slipped out the top 100 recently. So much for private investment.

 

We can't magically shrink the population though. It's a nice theory but that's as far as it goes. You will have to wait maybe 100 years before it happens naturally.

 

We are experiencing an economic experiment. Absolutely no doubt about it.

[SHYTOT]

I am interested in what you have to say. And don't make the mistake of thinking I see this as a Tory vs Labour thing because I don't. I believe that both parties are devoid of ideas and both have amply demonstrated that.

 

Personally I can't see us getting out of this mess unless we have some kind of sustainable growth. And I think we need to invest to get that. And more importantly we also need to persuade private investors to come on board.

 

If we don't grow then the current policies are just like chucking money into a hole. If we use the household anology then it's like wasting your wages, borrowing more then wasting that too. But as least if you had used some of your wages (or borrowing) to upgrade your house like put a new roof on or re-wire it then at least you have something to show. If you lose your house because of your debt then at least the next occupier has a more economically viable asset.

 

That's very interesting regarding the non political stance because your every post seems to suggest you support the Labour ideology. Just remember who was in government when we got into this mess.

You seem far more trusting of the crew that steered the Titanic into the iceberg than the crew of the ship that is struggling to pick up any salvage and survivors.

So your analogy would have us carry on borrowing so that the country looks nice for when the creditors arrive and start auctioning off the assets. I'm not sure that if I were up to my neck in debt that I'd borrow a load more cash to rewire my house for the repo man. But we are all different. If I were you I'd start learning Arabic or Mandarin.

[I1L2T3]

That's very interesting regarding the non political stance because your every post seems to suggest you support the Labour ideology. Just remember who was in government when we got into this mess.

You seem far more trusting of the crew that steered the Titanic into the iceberg than the crew of the ship that is struggling to pick up any salvage and survivors.

So your analogy would have us carry on borrowing so that the country looks nice for when the creditors arrive and start auctioning off the assets. I'm not sure that if I were up to my neck in debt that I'd borrow a load more cash to rewire my house for the repo man. But we are all different. If I were you I'd start learning Arabic or Mandarin.

 

I'm not a Labour supporter. I was but not any more. The last government was a disaster and I can never support them again. But I think if the Tories had been at the helm there would have been an even bigger mess.

 

In terms of growth we now need it for a specific reason and that is so we can manage our debt better. Long-term my view couldn't be more different from the Labour party (and the Tories) which almost seems to emphasise growth for the sake of growth. We can't do that any more because we can't sustain it. But that doesn't take away the fact that we have a large and growing population that needs to be as economically active as possible. We can't ignore the fact that we need the infrastructure to make that happen, to support more people into work as the population grows and to prevent more and more people ending up in poverty. It requires investment. End of story.

[SHYTOT]

I'm not a Labour supporter. I was but not any more. The last government was a disaster and I can never support them again. But I think if the Tories had been at the helm there would have been an even bigger mess.

 

In terms of growth we now need it for a specific reason and that is so we can manage our debt better. Long-term my view couldn't be more different from the Labour party (and the Tories) which almost seems to emphasise growth for the sake of growth. We can't do that any more because we can't sustain it. But that doesn't take away the fact that we have a large and growing population that needs to be as economically active as possible. We can't ignore the fact that we need the infrastructure to make that happen, to support more people into work as the population grows and to prevent more and more people ending up in poverty. It requires investment. End of story.

 

During the Thatcher years the UK stock market rose a massive 430%. That is one reason why overseas companies invested here and brought growth and jobs.

 

Between 1997 and 2010 the UK stock market grew by around 20%. That is negative growth if you allow for inflation. The only thing that expanded was the public sector that took on a million extra staff that the economy couldn't afford, and a burden on tax payers and companies alike. Despite the public sector expansion Labour left office with higher unemployment than in 1997 when they came to power.

 

At least the stock market is rising again and stands 20% higher than it did in May 2010. That at least encourages folk to invest in UK companies again. It is a pity that Gordon Brown abolished indexation for capital gains made on share investments. It certainly doesn't encourage long term share ownership on UK markets. But I still doubt that a rising market is enough to encourage large firms to locate here now the low wage economies have joined the EU.

[*Belle*]

The stock market is a bubble that is going to burst, probably in the next month or two. What we all have to realise, is that the party is over. The majority of the industrial world is a basket case. There is no way back.

[tinfoilhat]

The stock market is a bubble that is going to burst, probably in the next month or two. What we all have to realise, is that the party is over. The majority of the industrial world is a basket case. There is no way back.

 

I bet you're a hit at parties ;)

 

Have you have evidence of this 2 month deadline to financial apocalypse ? Would you make a wager ?

[SHYTOT]

I bet you're a hit at parties ;)

 

Have you have evidence of this 2 month deadline to financial apocalypse ? Would you make a wager ?

 

Count me in. I'll have some of that too.

[MrSmith]

I won't argue with the idea that the public sector should be more efficient. But I will argue if people say we shouldn't invest in our infrastructure.

No one is saying we shouldn't invest, but before we can invest we need to get the debt under control, the investment should have happened 10 years ago instead of spending the money expanding an already over populated country and paying people to sit on their arses. You are stuck in the system that got us into the mess and your only answer is more debt, I agree, if we borrow more money and spend it on infrastructure we will get growth in the short term but in the long term our problems will just get worse.

 

 

We have less UK universities in the top 100 worldwide. Last year we had nine. The year before we had twelve. Sheffield is one of the ones that slipped out the top 100 recently. So much for private investment.

 

What would you like to stop spending money in order that we can spend it on universities?

 

 

 

We can't magically shrink the population though. It's a nice theory but that's as far as it goes. You will have to wait maybe 100 years before it happens naturally.

Yet you think we can just magic money into existence to spend on infrastructure, at some point the population will have to fall, it can’t expand indefinitely, and it wouldn't take 100 years for the population to fall naturally.

 

 

We are experiencing an economic experiment. Absolutely no doubt about it.

 

No we are experiencing the inevitable consequences of over consumption, over population and an economic system that relying on perpetual debt and human expansion.