Osborne's plan to spend his way out of trouble

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

This is just one small part of an obscure part of Government and you have to work pretty hard to find where the money's going. I'm sure that many or even all the above organisations do sterling work and I have nothing against an online magazine for Pakistani women or helping out blind people of whatever racial background. The problem is that there will be massive amounts of duplication, waste and probably fraud going on. Most of the grants are between about £7,500 and £40,000 a month. That's an average of perhaps quarter of a million a year each and the list of grants and payments to keep the office running (excluding staff) runs to 8 pages of close type.

No matter how you slice and dice this, it can't continue. This stuff is dragging the British economy down and will take the rest of you with it.

This problem happens because historically politicians have never had a problem with spending other peoples money. I wonder how many politicians would find this spending essential if they had to pay for it directly from their own current accounts.

I've seen lazy arguments from the current government about how hard it is to make cuts - it's not - it's very simple. Simply tell each council to review all expenditure and make drastic cuts. It would be easy to do - I'd be willing to donate my time for free to help my local council do it and I'm sure plenty of other people would too.

purch

Were their electorates easily seduced into tough policy? Perhaps they are intrinsically more intelligent than us ?

When 6 months of every year are spent in total darkness, long periods of navel gazing are the only entertainment.

Conrad

kabayiri wrote: »

Nobody comes back from Norway crowing about how it is such a cheap place to live; yet they seem to have found a sustainable economic footing even in difficult times.

Resource rich nations with smallish populations are bound to suceed.

Conrad

wotsthat wrote: »

I've seen lazy arguments from the current government about how hard it is to make cuts - it's not - it's very simple.

I'm all for cuts, but of course it isn't 'simple'.

Turn on a radio phone - in show such as Radio 5 Live and you will find at least half the callers will be saying the Tories aren't listening to them. 'Simply' cutting is not easy to do when halve the population think cutting is a bad idea.

kabayiri

Conrad wrote: »

Resource rich nations with smallish populations are bound to suceed.

Counsel : "M'lord, I disagree with the prosecution's claim set forth above"

Judge : "Do you have any evidence?"

Counsel : "Yes, m'lord. I offer exhibit A - Scotland!"

wotsthat

Conrad wrote: »

I'm all for cuts, but of course it isn't 'simple'.

Turn on a radio phone - in show such as Radio 5 Live and you will find at least half the callers will be saying the Tories aren't listening to them. 'Simply' cutting is not easy to do when halve the population think cutting is a bad idea.

The conservatives pledged to sort the deficit so it's not like they came to power with a pledge to blow council tax payers money.

It's not simple but practically it's pretty easy. Pop a letter in the post to the, say, ethnic alcohol counselling in Hounslow, explaining that whilst the council is delighted with the service provided it's with regret that funding will be withdrawn.

I listen to 5 Live and would say that you've underestimated the number of people moaning about how they've been hard done to. Human nature dictates that those who 'lose' tend to be rather more disgruntled than those who 'win' and are very much more likely to 'phone radio stations.

What it needs are politicians who want 'to do the right thing', and mean it, and who aren't too worried about votes - unfortunately they don't exist.

Caveat_Mortgagor

vax2002 wrote: »

Old Gideon will be slashing working families tax credits after Christmas by eye watering levels.
A lot of people are really going to drop in the brown stuff.

Good! One of Gordons biggest !!!! ups that was. A family with one earner and an income of £47k has the same spending power as a family with one earner bringing in £25k.

How can you justify increasing the spending power of a family on average income to give them double the average?

It reduces the incentive to improve your lot and get pay rises / work overtime if you can be given free cash by Gordon the nanny!

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

...
What it needs are politicians who want 'to do the right thing', and mean it, and who aren't too worried about votes - unfortunately they don't exist.

They don't even know what the 'right thing' is any more.

So we get policy decisions, with a general aim of 'stimulating the wider economy'. They don't set targets which you can easily measure, meaning it's very hard to challenge them.

For example, if you ask them how much QE are we likely to end up with, they won't provide an answer.

I honestly think they are buying time, hoping for some global conference where China agrees to buy half of Western Europe as some kind of summer house for it's richer government staff.

heathcote123

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osbornes-plan-to-spend-his-way-out-of-trouble-6268865.html


Tory Rhetoric = You can't spend your way out of a debt crisis.

Economic Reality = You can't cut your way out of a recession.

Political Necessity = Avoiding a double dip or there will be no second term.


It's certainly interesting to watch......:)

Hamish, you really seem to buy into the 'government spending leads to growth' stuff, so I have a serious question for you.

The previous goverment claimed they only borrowed to invest, not to spend.

So why aren't we all loaded now? Where is the return?
What makes you think the next trench of goverment spending will be more successful?

Do you really, honestly, think the solution to our current woes is to borrow more? It's just whenever I hear the likes of Balls etc trotting out the old spending arguament, it makes my brain hurt so much I facepalm.

I think we've got to accept radically smaller goverment, or go bankrupt. Knowing politicians, I think the bankruptcy bit is the most likely, but it may take a while.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i was going to suggest scotland to save on the cost of a foreign campaign. the only problem with this is that half the army is scottish.

It is only the same as when we were supposed to have brought terror to the highlands in 1746 at Culloden and (Glencoe as well for that matter), half the army was Scottish, ironically Charley Stuarts army had a few Mancs in it.