Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

One of you guys should go on Question Time and ask Labour and Tories why they lie by omission by not accounting for the country's liabilities and then ask the smirking Lib Dem why they've never called the parties that actually get voted for to account!

Generali I'm not aware that any country in the EEC accounts for their public sector pension provision in the way you suggest? or any different from the UK for that matter?

What exactly is it that you think the UK should be doing?

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

Generali I'm not aware that any country in the EEC accounts for their public sector pension provision in the way you suggest? or any different from the UK for that matter....

You are right AFAIK, however that other countries also do the same thing, doesn't make it right.

I believe that Australia is one of very few coutries to realise that they have a future liability in the shape of pensions that pre-dated the current Super system and so have set up a Future Fund. I think they're about half way towards meeting their goal of have all liabilities covered by 2020.

Other countries haven't recognised the liabilities explicitly but have set up Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) that will cover them. Examples include Norway, Singapore and Kuwait.

The UK should recognise that liabilities exist in the national accounts for pensions, health promises, PFI and care home provision (if the Tories follow through with their promise). If they were to do that, even without setting aside any cash to pay for the liability, then at least voters could see the cost of promises being made in their names.

Money_Grabber13579

StevieJ wrote: »

She correct because (on reflection) this transaction would certainly be classsed as a finance lease where the risks have not been transferred to the lessor.

It would make more sense to say that the risks and rewards have transferred to the lessee, because the lessor had the rights in the first place. (You can't transfer them to yourself!);)

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

I believe that Australia is one of very few coutries to realise that they have a future liability in the shape of pensions that pre-dated the current Super system and so have set up a Future Fund. I think they're about half way towards meeting their goal of have all liabilities covered by 2020.

Other countries haven't recognised the liabilities explicitly but have set up Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) that will cover them. Examples include Norway, Singapore and Kuwait.

The UK should recognise that liabilities exist in the national accounts for pensions, health promises, PFI and care home provision (if the Tories follow through with their promise). If they were to do that, even without setting aside any cash to pay for the liability, then at least voters could see the cost of promises being made in their names.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought Australia had quite a large deficit? So what's the point in having any sort of savings fund?

Norway and Kuwait have lots of oil money to save. According to the op's article we don't have a large Soverign Wealth Fund because Margaret Thatcher wasted all the oil money on keeping people on the dole.....

.....so it would seem we have come full circle

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought Australia had quite a large deficit? So what's the point in having any sort of savings fund?

Norway and Kuwait have lots of oil money to save. According to the op's article we don't have a large Soverign Wealth Fund because Margaret Thatcher wasted all the oil money on keeping people on the dole.....

.....so it would seem we have come full circle

Australia has a deficit but not a large Government debt. Until about a year ago there was no net debt however for technical reasons the Government wanted to create a 'risk free asset' so sold Government bonds.

Does it seem likely to you that Mrs Thatcher wanted to keep people on the dole? I can't think of any reason why a politician would do that.

kabayiri

The beauty of PFI to a commercial supplier is that there are 2 areas of return :-
a) obviously the leasing back of the hospital or school
b) the ongoing maintenance / service charges for the hospital or school.

For an outfit such as Jarvis item b) can be, erm, very lucrative indeed.

I know of one school under such a scheme where the caretaker isnt really allowed to do anything. The call out costs for replacing bulbs or screwing toilet roll holders back on would make you wince.

Regardless of political party, I would at least like them to try and spend our money wisely. Pipe dream perhaps.

Spiv_2

Cameron's Conservatives will repeat economic mistakes of 1930s

Governments and central banks in the 1930s made that depression worse: following George Osborne's policy could return us to those dark days

t was something of a shock to return from the Istanbul meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, where the atmosphere was reasonably enlightened, to find that the shadow chancellor, George Osborne, wishes to go back to the 1930s.If there was one unanimous theme among the finance ministers, central bankers and officials on the shores of the Bosphorus, it was that now was not the time to begin implementing an "exit strategy" from the circumstances in which the world economy has been rescued by a truly massive fiscal and monetary stimulus.

"I do believe that the burden should be borne by the public sector," says the Modern Conservative Leader. The "burden" to which he refers is that of cutting the public sector deficit, the deficit without which – and the Conservatives were against any idea of a fiscal boost – we should almost certainly have had a depression and analysts would not be hailing a slowdown in the rate of increase of unemployment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/18/conservatives-economy-recovery-william-keegan

I found this on HPC

Money_Grabber13579

kabayiri wrote: »

The beauty of PFI to a commercial supplier is that there are 2 areas of return :-
a) obviously the leasing back of the hospital or school
b) the ongoing maintenance / service charges for the hospital or school.

For an outfit such as Jarvis item b) can be, erm, very lucrative indeed.

I know of one school under such a scheme where the caretaker isnt really allowed to do anything. The call out costs for replacing bulbs or screwing toilet roll holders back on would make you wince.

Regardless of political party, I would at least like them to try and spend our money wisely. Pipe dream perhaps.

We've got a school at Balmoral in Belfast that was built about 5 years ago under PFI. It's since closed down, but the payments have to continue for another 25 years! What a waste!:mad::mad:

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

Australia has a deficit but not a large Government debt. Until about a year ago there was no net debt however for technical reasons the Government wanted to create a 'risk free asset' so sold Government bonds.

Ummm not quite with you on this

Whatever the final form of Australia's proposed budget, one thing is clear: in an effort to spend its way out of recession, Australia will wind up with a record budget deficit. Kevin Rudd's government on Tuesday night unveiled a budget with the largest Post-War budget deficit Australia's ever had.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/13/australia-record-deficit-markets-economy-tax.html

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/deficit-to-blow-out-to-80bn/story-e6freuy9-1225706228571

StevieJ

Spiv wrote: »

Cameron's Conservatives will repeat economic mistakes of 1930s



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/18/conservatives-economy-recovery-william-keegan

I found this on HPC

If the Tories had been in power for the last two years we wouldn't have had an a decent entrance policy never mind exit.

They wont like this on here

the chief executive of the Government's Debt Management Office, Robert Stheeman, tells us. He recently said: "I would say that coming from a relatively low base of the stock of debt, certainly compared to other countries, gives the UK a slight advantage [in financing the deficit]".