Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Oh I definitely don't want Greek austerity. But because someone else has it worse doesn't mean we don't have it bad.

I'd be interested to hear your definition of austerity. As I posted above, borrowing tens of billions every year doesn't look like austerity to me.

Filo25

ukcarper wrote: »

I also remember The Harold Wilson government and would not compare Corbyn's Labour to his. I have been a Labour voter all my life but I could not vote for the present Labour Party not because I don't agree with some of their policies but because they are totally unrealistic.

It is also pretty clear that the leadership's core beliefs are actually far to the let of even the policies they have talked about so far.

I believe that society needs to get fairer and that there needs to be investment in public services, but these lunatics aren't the answer either.

I doubt Corbyn and McDonnell ever came across a problem for which their solution wasn't, more state control, more taxes, more spending.

By British standards I am probably a bit left of centre, but that doesn't mean I want to see an end to the mixed economy, the state should only be getting involved where there is genuine market failure and even then it should be intervening to achieve its goals in the least disruptive way possible.

Why on earth would we need to spend a fortune on nationalising energy companies when we could achieve the same benefit for consumers with a better regulatory environment, unless of course the real benefit Labour is looking for isn't for consumers at all but rather for the unionised workforce in that industry.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear your definition of austerity. As I posted above, borrowing tens of billions every year doesn't look like austerity to me.

Cut down on the stuff we don't need to spend money on, including dropping schemes that don't actually save money (like spending more denying disability payments than saved). Pay close attention to what we do need to spend money on and make sure that it's being used in the most efficient way possible, rather than making everyone knock x% off their budgets.

Make it look fair, since "we're all in it together"; the same restrictions applying to MPs as every other public sector job. Heavy clamp down on expenses abuse.

You know, exactly the same as you'd do if you were cutting your household budget; make more efficient use of your money but don't scrimp on maintenance or stuff that'll result in a bigger bill later.

Do this in conjunction with clampdowns on tax evasion and loopholes.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

Cut down on the stuff we don't need to spend money on, including dropping schemes that don't actually save money (like spending more denying disability payments than saved). Pay close attention to what we do need to spend money on and make sure that it's being used in the most efficient way possible, rather than making everyone knock x% off their budgets.

Make it look fair, since "we're all in it together"; the same restrictions applying to MPs as every other public sector job. Heavy clamp down on expenses abuse.

You know, exactly the same as you'd do if you were cutting your household budget; make more efficient use of your money but don't scrimp on maintenance or stuff that'll result in a bigger bill later.

Do this in conjunction with clampdowns on tax evasion and loopholes.

I’m afraid this political utopia you’re craving is beyond the realms of any sort of reality. The idea that parties disband into some kind of whip-less coalition of 650 independents is somewhat far-fetched.

What do you mean ‘Cut down on the stuff we don’t need to spend money on’?

Isn’t that exactly what the govt are trying to do? It’s just that your definition of need is different to theirs.

How about foreign aid? Do we need to spend that?

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

The (my) world is a more dangerous place today.

I put that down PARTLY to Brexit and Trump.

Both are reflections of the world you helped to create. Where some people now live in their secure gated worlds extremely comfortably well off. Shutting themselves off from the realities of everyday life. There's huge amounts of decay in the West. While the East goes from strength to strength. Trump at least has the ordinary US citizens at heart. Not an endorsement just a fact.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Cut down on the stuff we don't need to spend money on, including dropping schemes that don't actually save money (like spending more denying disability payments than saved). Pay close attention to what we do need to spend money on and make sure that it's being used in the most efficient way possible, rather than making everyone knock x% off their budgets.

Make it look fair, since "we're all in it together"; the same restrictions applying to MPs as every other public sector job. Heavy clamp down on expenses abuse.

You know, exactly the same as you'd do if you were cutting your household budget; make more efficient use of your money but don't scrimp on maintenance or stuff that'll result in a bigger bill later.

Do this in conjunction with clampdowns on tax evasion and loopholes.

These are things that all governments of whatever colour should be doing as a matter of routine. Nothing to do with austerity as such.

Jackmydad

Herzlos wrote: »

Cut down on the stuff we don't need to spend money on, including dropping schemes that don't actually save money (like spending more denying disability payments than saved). Pay close attention to what we do need to spend money on and make sure that it's being used in the most efficient way possible, rather than making everyone knock x% off their budgets.

Make it look fair, since "we're all in it together"; the same restrictions applying to MPs as every other public sector job. Heavy clamp down on expenses abuse.

You know, exactly the same as you'd do if you were cutting your household budget; make more efficient use of your money but don't scrimp on maintenance or stuff that'll result in a bigger bill later.

Do this in conjunction with clampdowns on tax evasion and loopholes.

But do you mean "Cut down on the stuff we don't need to spend money on" or "Cut down on the stuff that I think we don't need to spend money on"?
Different people have different ideas on what is essential spending.

Knocking money off people's budgets may be a blunt instrument, but it makes the people spending those budgets look at what they're spending themselves, so it hopefully has the desired effect of making them more efficient.

Lornapink

Herzlos wrote: »

Oh I definitely don't want Greek austerity. But because someone else has it worse doesn't mean we don't have it bad.

We owe £65,000 for every citizen. How much would you like us to owe?

If we spent the magic amount you would deem appropriate, do you understand demand would soon catch-up? For example new medical breakthroughs would be made available, thus creating new demand.

What then would your answer be? More spending?


Building the M25 didn't reduce consumption, it created demand. Building millions more homes will merely make UK an even more attractive destination, nothing whatsoever would be solved aside some short -term abstract achievement.

Lornapink

Moby wrote: »

'Taking back control' is code for deregulation of working rights and conditions.

Are you aware that the EU is a rule taker and most of 'it's' rules originate in global bodies?
Here's just a few of them;

OECD
International Telecommunications Union
World Trade Organisation
UN, EG > Recent conference's on Trade and Development / UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

International Standards Organisation
International Maritime Organisation

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

We owe £65,000 for every citizen. How much would you like us to owe?

If we spent the magic amount you would deem appropriate, do you understand demand would soon catch-up? For example new medical breakthroughs would be made available, thus creating new demand.

What then would your answer be? More spending?

We should owe £0 and be in surplus.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point about spending. Say a home help visit costs the state £20 a day per patient. You can cut that service and save £20 from your home help budget, awesome. But you're often then moving someone from a £20/day home help to a £100/day care home, or a £500/day hospital ward. And Voila you're £20/day saving is actually costing you £480/day.

Or the pothole thing. You've got a pothole you could fix for £50, if you were allowed to spend money on non-essentials. Because it goes unfixed, you have to pay out 4x£100 on burst tyres, and by the time you get to the repair it costs £200. Again on paper you've saved £50, but in reality the cost saving measure has cost you £550.

Then you've got schemes like the hated PIP assessments, where the government is spending more in assessors and appeals (most of which are upheld) than they are saving in PIP payments.

Use money carefully to save costs, and don't follow a little government under the guise of austerity that's actually costing you more.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

The sort of things you can reduce spend on are things like ceremonies (christmas lights, awards), vanity projects (Boris' garden bridge, HS2) change for the sake of it (like converting the Scottish Police forces into a single super-sized force, another thing that cost a lot of money in re-branding and paperwork, but saved nothing in management costs), and stuff that's totally redundant (Trident).

I'd also sell all of the MP's 2nd homes and buy a hotel that they can stay in whilst at Parliament. That'd save a fortune and make security a lot easier to deal with.