The Murdoch Dividend and the UK Government Spending Cuts

[Idaho]

I don't like to say I told you so... well I lie, I love it. It proves what a clever ginger I am.

I wanted to go and find the two threads I posted this on, but I don't have time to find them. I tried and failed in my search.

My prediction was that Murdoch would abandon the Labour party and put his media empire behind the Tories. But old digger isn't stupid. He expects to get payback. And the payback needed to come in the form of attacks on the BBC - his biggest rival. His websites are now behind a paywall, and the BBC website is the biggest rival both online and on TV.

Murdoch praises government plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11594936)

BBC Funding Frozen/Reduced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11572171)

Of course Murdoch wins on two counts. He's a notorious tax dodger, and the government have targetted their cuts specifically to hit the poorest, while leaving the richest relatively untouched. Odd really for a cabinet that consists of 20 millionaires, a number of whom are 'non-doms' (registered in foreign countries to avoid paying tax). Indeed the government brought in retail magnate Phillip Green to advise on cost savings. A man worth many many millions, made from stores in the UK, but who pays no UK tax.

Meanwhile the banks will have to pay a £2.5bn a year tax. Seem like a lot? Well seeing as they got £850bn of our money over the last few years, it's chump change. Perhaps I should go and get £85 loans from them and see if I can pay it back at the rate of £2.50 a year?

[rory_20_uk]

Targeted to hit the poorest... The old acclaim never looses popularity, does it?

What exactly did the poor loose? I'm not talking about hand outs here - that isn't something that they ever earned, they were given - so let's not include the council tax waiver, the subsidised food, housing, children's allowance, free prescriptions, free travel... oh how the list goes on... Are they paying more taxes? Is there a poor tax?


Let's see what was done:

Child trust funds cut (oh yes, increased for the poor)
Child benefits now with ceiling (of £26,000 - more than the average wage!)
Incapacity benefit means-tested
Elderly care means tested

The banks did not get given money. The government bought shares at the nadir. Rather like a Hedge Fund would. They are now at the point of making a profit. They also made money providing insurance for debt which also gained the governement a profit

Your "loan" of £85 would also mean you gave 70% of your car to them permanently in exchange. They then later as an afterthought asked for £2.50 a year in being so nice in buying the car.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

nm
misread the source

[InsaneApache]

Ahhh Idaho, guarenteed to get the juices flowing eh? :beam:

Some people just refuse to 'get it'.

I have to, upon pain of imprisonment, fund the BBC. If I want to watch telly, I have to buy a license from the BBC to do so.

As for Murdoch, I can decide whether or not I want to buy/watch/read his particular brand of piffle. If I don't, I won't get sent to gaol, unlike the BBC.

Now on to the issue of how may millionaires there are in the cabinet. I wonder how many millionires there are in the shadow cabinet?

Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss. :idea2:

Now then, all this talk of cuts and somesuchlike. There will only be cuts in the increase of budgets, not real cuts at all. Factor in the fact that government spending increased by 50% in the last decade, then account for the austerity measures and government expenditure in set to rise.

Not my definition of a cut. Don't know about you lot.

And this is your starter for ten. Who's economic genius put us in this situation?

That is all.

[Idaho]

Targeted to hit the poorest... The old acclaim never looses popularity, does it?

What exactly did the poor loose? I'm not talking about hand outs here - that isn't something that they ever earned, they were given - so let's not include the council tax waiver, the subsidised food, housing, children's allowance, free prescriptions, free travel... oh how the list goes on... Are they paying more taxes? Is there a poor tax?

We currently have over 2m unemployed, and another half million are about to lose their public sector jobs. Direct effect will be poverty, secondary result will reduce wages = poor will become poorer.

Unemployment benefits are to only last a set amount of time = poor will be under more pressure and will become poorer.

Reduced public services = worse conditions/services for people who can't afford to pay

Increased higher education costs = poor will have to make themselves poorer to afford to get out of poverty

[rory_20_uk]

Unemployment benefits are to only last a set amount of time = more incentive / pressure to get a job! Jobs get taxed, more money to the state. Currently there's so little pressure to work it's not funny.

Reduced public services = Perhaps increases in efficiency that have fallen in the last decade. Novel ways of undertaking activities. Might even stop doing pointless services. Can't afford to pay for what? Interesting how many things are viewed as essential that didn't exist even 50 years ago.

Increased higher education costs = More incentive to think before getting on a degree and to value one's degree. Better campuses to compete with China / India / the USA and improve the intellectual capital. Loan paid back of the next 30 YEARS, only when earning a salary and then written off. Still subsidies for the poorest, and increase in investment in the poorest children in schools in real terms.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

1. Murdoch praises government plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11594936)

2. BBC Funding Frozen/Reduced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11572171)


or to consider it in another light:

1. as does anyone with functioning frontal lobes.

2. practically everyone else got hit, why would the beeb escape?

[Idaho]

in real terms.

"In real terms" is something that politicians say when they want to twist a statistic to fit their agenda.

[rory_20_uk]

Cuts are often also twisted to include rises that are deemed to be lower than critics would like, and of course removal of handouts.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

i'm pleased to say, that in real terms, the defence budget cut is only 7.3% rather than the 8.0% figure quoted, thank you beeb.

[gaelic cowboy]

Did anyone see that CH4 Dispatches programme on those tax havens and there connection to the Tories through the hedge fund guys donating to the election.

I couldnt stop laughing the Tories are only in and there up to there old trick again.

[Furunculus]

colour me concerned.

[gaelic cowboy]

colour me concerned.

The FCO was gonna make them pay more tax in return for being allowed to increase sovereign debt.

Suddenly the Tories are in and the FCO drops the plan behind the couch after they got millions in donations.

[rory_20_uk]

Did anyone see that CH4 Dispatches programme on those tax havens and there connection to the Tories through the hedge fund guys donating to the election.

I couldnt stop laughing the Tories are only in and there up to there old trick again.

Politicians self-serving and corrupt? Who'd've thought it?

In the Lord's a few have been suspended for acts that us mere mortals would have been forced to repay, fined, charged interest and possibly even a suspended sentence. There it was 1 Tory and 2 Labour, but probably many others were just as guilty.

All parties have had soft loans, "interesting" interpretation over campaign expenditure - you name it, a politician has done it.

These elite will spend on whoever they think is in power as they want influence. Most have no morals or loyalties that can't be bought and sold.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

Politicians self-serving and corrupt? Who'd've thought it?

~:smoking:

Yea except this is brazen cheek at a time of cuts in the UK the hedge fund industry centered in a caymans etc etc donates to Tories and the plan only on the table weeks before gets dropped.

The Caymans had to ask the FCO permission to buy sovereign debt so Labour said fine buy debt but bring in some kind of tax on financial services they refused and waited for the Tories to back there mates and got approval to buy debt.



By the way what is it with you and the smoking smilies those things will kill you man

[Strike For The South]

Idahos a ginger?

[gaelic cowboy]

There's a few of us about Strike

[Idaho]

Idahos a ginger?

I am most certainly not! I've had some insults over the years in this forum, but that's well OTT.

[Idaho]

These elite will spend on whoever they think is in power as they want influence. Most have no morals or loyalties that can't be bought and sold.

I just don't understand right-wingers. Someone on a council estate scams a few grand a year on benefits and it's the end of the world. Someone scams a few million in tax dodging or sharp practice and it's fair enough.

[Furunculus]

I just don't understand right-wingers. Someone on a council estate scams a few grand a year on benefits and it's the end of the world. Someone scams a few million in tax dodging or sharp practice and it's fair enough.

perhaps it is harder to be outraged about money that you never had, and would never be spent on you anyway, than money you paid in the hope that it might help someone else, only for it to disappear in fraud.............. :D

besides which, i have sympathy towards anyone trying to dodge the 50% income tax rate, it is never moral for the state to tithe half or more of your income.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Murdoch will do anything he can to destroy the sanitary influence of serious journalism on Britain.

Outside the UK, all his media outlets have been bitterly anti-EU ever since Brussels' anti-trust measures prevented him from doing to the European media what he's done to the Anglo press.




~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


Meanwhile, get with the times, Cons! In a timely article earlier today, one of the world's foremost economists, Krugman totally rubbishes the British austerity measures:


In the spring of 2010, fiscal austerity became fashionable. I use the term advisedly: the sudden consensus among Very Serious People that everyone must balance budgets now now now wasn’t based on any kind of careful analysis. It was more like a fad, something everyone professed to believe because that was what the in-crowd was saying.

And it’s a fad that has been fading lately, as evidence has accumulated that the lessons of the past remain relevant, that trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. Most notably, the confidence fairy has been exposed as a myth. There have been widespread claims that deficit-cutting actually reduces unemployment because it reassures consumers and businesses; but multiple studies of historical record, including one by the International Monetary Fund, have shown that this claim has no basis in reality.

No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.

Britain, like America, is suffering from the aftermath of a housing and debt bubble. Its problems are compounded by London’s role as an international financial center: Britain came to rely too much on profits from wheeling and dealing to drive its economy — and on financial-industry tax payments to pay for government programs.

Over-reliance on the financial industry largely explains why Britain, which came into the crisis with relatively low public debt, has seen its budget deficit soar to 11 percent of G.D.P. — slightly worse than the U.S. deficit. And there’s no question that Britain will eventually need to balance its books with spending cuts and tax increases.

The operative word here should, however, be “eventually.” Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further unless it can be offset by a fall in interest rates. Right now, interest rates in Britain, as in America, are already very low, with little room to fall further. The sensible thing, then, is to devise a plan for putting the nation’s fiscal house in order, while waiting until a solid economic recovery is under way before wielding the ax.
But trendy fashion, almost by definition, isn’t sensible — and the British government seems determined to ignore the lessons of history.

Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.

The British government’s plan is bold, say the pundits — and so it is. But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut government employment by 490,000 workers — the equivalent of almost three million layoffs in the United States — at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment. It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.
Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.
Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.

Instead, it was all about the apocalypse looming if Britain failed to go down this route. Never mind that British debt as a percentage of national income is actually below its historical average; never mind that British interest rates stayed low even as the nation’s budget deficit soared, reflecting the belief of investors that the country can and will get its finances under control. Britain, declared Mr. Osborne, was on the “brink of bankruptcy.”
What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html?src=me&ref=generalOuch!

[Brenus]

In the mean time, as the Tories were cheering at the announcement of the cuts, some of my colleagues started their redundancy procedure.
To see the face of the 50 something years old, having to go home to tell the family that at the end of November, no more job. X-mass will be nice.
In the mean time, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson will increase the Railways Fair around just 70%. Taxes will go up soon. The Social Benefit will give more than the Banks. But we are all together and all is fair…

This demolition Coalition succeeded in making Maggie looking as a Social Democrat. The poor woman is actually in a hospital, but she would be proud, as soon she will recover.

I am not in this charette… Perhaps next time, but it will be fair, of course…

[Rhyfelwyr]

There's a few of us about Strike

I'm not alone! There are far too many gingers in the Backroom it would seem, proportionally speaking.

[tibilicus]

I think it was Francis Fukuyama who described world economic integration and liberalisation and capitalism as "the end of history", meaning that no other system could effectively take its place ever. It would appear it really is the end of history as any remnant of what was the post-war consensus/ social society is finally washed away for good.

The thing is, I find it hard to be genuinely mad. Simply put, there is no alternative, despite what some might say. The current debt levels are as bad as the ones in the 1970s which effectively saw us become a bankrupt nation. Yes, universities will become unobtainable for some, single mums may now have to get jobs and we're all probably going to have to work a lot longer. We can either suffer a hit to public services and see the state shrink, or accept higher taxes. I know which choice I would prefer.

[gaelic cowboy]

The current debt levels are as bad as the ones in the 1970s which effectively saw us become a bankrupt nation.

Actually it's worse in a way as the debt this time is Private and Public.

In a really crude sense both ends of the river are clogged and the water ie credit has drained away due to it being spent basically

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not alone! There are far too many gingers in the Backroom it would seem, proportionally speaking.

Come to the darkside or should that be redside we have cake

[gaelic cowboy]

The banks did not get given money. The government bought shares at the nadir. Rather like a Hedge Fund would. They are now at the point of making a profit. They also made money providing insurance for debt which also gained the governement a profit



They did get given money dont fool yourself into thinking they didnt.

In any bust business I ever saw if someone buys it they get it cheap and they either close it down and sell off bits or they assume the debt and try to trade out of it. That did not happen in this case or anywhere for that matter take your pick Ireland USA UK you name it they all done it even Germany.

What we have seen here is governments buying in at an inflated price way more than there actually worth in the hopes the economy will inflate the debt away. Hoping this will happen is sometimes a good idea any economist will tell you it is a viable option to take resources from the future to pay for today if it's invested right unfortunately for the whole world this did not happen.


In the old days this idea would have worked as the customers of the bank would have been the debtors but now the banks have easily lent all there customers cash ages ago they now owe outside the bank inflating the debt away may not be so easy this time.

[rory_20_uk]

When private equity takes over a company, they have to have extremely rapid returns to satiate all the investors. So yes you buy then quickly sell the parts. Some are in the business of turning the business around.

They bought RBS shares for c. 50p. They are now trading at a few pence under 50p. So yes, a slight paper loss. Compared to the cost of possibly all the major UK banks just folding?

Bank profits are slowly recovering, mainly on the margins of saving / lending being in some cases 6% at the moment. In a few years time they'll be able to sell the shares in tranches probably at a profit.

It compares rather well to Brown's selling of UK gold though.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

What's the problem, these cuts have to done unless taking a plunge into debt is reserved only as a term for trailer-trash who wanted the latest lg-HD TV

[Ja'chyra]

As omeone who doesn't like any of the political parties I agree with some of the measures.

Things like time limiting benefits are good as long as the jobs are created for people to go to, having to move to get a job isn't an excuse not to do it.

Things like sacking 500,000 ish civil servants isn't good, most of that work will still need to be done and will now be done by expensive consultants at more than double the cost, places like HMRC should be expanded to catch all the tax dodgers. Also, all MP's should have to be UK citizens paying full tax.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Life on the dole creates a permanent underclass. Abolishing a system in which many who don't work are better off than some who do is the right policy aim.
Yet getting the incentives to work right won't matter unless there are jobs to be had. In this regard, the £1 billion carbon tax on business isn't helpful. Nor is the notion of extracting the "maximum sustainable revenue" in taxes from the financial-services sector. If Britain is to be open for business, it could start by being less choosy about which businesses to favor and cutting taxes across-the-board instead. The biggest risk to the project is the government's proposed decade-long phase in of the new rules. Spreading the reforms across two parliamentary terms creates a danger that the changes may never see the light of day.

[Furunculus]

In the mean time, as the Tories were cheering at the announcement of the cuts, some of my colleagues started their redundancy procedure.
To see the face of the 50 something years old, having to go home to tell the family that at the end of November, no more job. X-mass will be nice.
In the mean time, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson will increase the Railways Fair around just 70%. Taxes will go up soon. The Social Benefit will give more than the Banks. But we are all together and all is fair…

This demolition Coalition succeeded in making Maggie looking as a Social Democrat. The poor woman is actually in a hospital, but she would be proud, as soon she will recover.

I am not in this charette… Perhaps next time, but it will be fair, of course…

it is terribly sad........................ but:

tough!

the government should not be tithing more than 40% of the wealth of the nation for public spending, it is immoral, as it will retard the long-term growth that will preserve standards of living for our children.

the government should not be spending massively beyond its tax base, it is disgusting, as those costs will be borne by our children tomorrow to fund our ease today.

Hack, Slash, Butcher, Cut, and continue doing so until we get back to a deficit free public spending program that consumes no more than 40% of the nations wealth.

I will cheer the government on!

[gaelic cowboy]

Hack, Slash, Butcher, Cut, and continue doing so until we get back to a deficit free public spending program that consumes no more than 40% of the nations wealth.

I will cheer the government on!

ye can start with those Nuke subs and carriers then what a waste of money.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not to mention the tanks, obsolete planes and other cold war cruft.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

ye can start with those Nuke subs and carriers then what a waste of money.

Start there and then what?

[Brenus]

“it is terribly sad........................ but: tough!” Yeap. I will tell my colleague who just lost their job. It is for the good of the nation that the banks keep their bonuses.

About the joke of the deficit. The Demolition Coalition says it I necessary to slaughter the poorest as it wants to cancel the deficit (enormous one!!!!) in…. 4 years. What a joke.
Each family having a mortgage for 20 years would dream of a debt you can pay in 4 years…

No, my dear, it is not about debts, it is about ideology. Money money money is the tune of this government. It is not about the country but about so few who will benefit of so many.

“the government should not be tithing more than 40% of the wealth of the nation for public spending, it is immoral, as it will retard the long-term growth that will preserve standards of living for our children.”
Immoral? What a Cr…?
The only way to protect the long term of a nation is do not trust private sector for the simple reason private sector has to make profit. So Private Sector don’t give a whatever to what can’t give money immediately…

That is the Big Society: Sweatshops and Lords, the Return with a Vengeance III.
But it is fair, according to you and our Government.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Meanwhile, get with the times, Cons! In a timely article earlier today, one of the world's foremost economists, Krugman totally rubbishes the British austerity measures:
Ouch!

:laugh4: So not spending huge amounts of money you don't have, and don't plan to have except from decades of borrowing, is a 'fad'?


The only way to protect the long term of a nation is do not trust private sector for the simple reason private sector has to make profit. So Private Sector don’t give a whatever to what can’t give money immediately…

You're right; the private sector has to provide a service people will willingly pay for and can't operate for decades by spending more than they make.

CR

[gaelic cowboy]

Start there and then what?

You want me to draft the budget then????

[Brenus]

“the private sector has to provide a service people”. Nope. The Private Sector has to make money thanks to the Monopoly they’ve got from their friends in the government. E.g. Trains, Energy or sectors that was previously in the Government hands.
So, no long term planning, just fast profits, as shown recently…
Dam, I always forget. The Deficit has nothing to do with the Bankers greed nor the collapse of Pension Funds…

[Crazed Rabbit]

“the private sector has to provide a service people”. Nope. The Private Sector has to make money thanks to the Monopoly they’ve got from their friends in the government. E.g. Trains, Energy or sectors that was previously in the Government hands.
So, no long term planning, just fast profits, as shown recently…
Dam, I always forget. The Deficit has nothing to do with the Bankers greed nor the collapse of Pension Funds…

Oh, so the answer to the problem of monopolies caused by the government is ... more government? Just take away the monopolies. :rolleyes: Plus, the vast majority of the private sector are not state granted monopolies.

But the central point is that governments cannot spend more than they take in forever. A reckoning was inevitable. Either drastic spending cuts or extreme tax increases.

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

“the private sector has to provide a service people”. Nope. The Private Sector has to make money thanks to the Monopoly they’ve got from their friends in the government. E.g. Trains, Energy or sectors that was previously in the Government hands.
So, no long term planning, just fast profits, as shown recently…
Dam, I always forget. The Deficit has nothing to do with the Bankers greed nor the collapse of Pension Funds…

Oh, so the answer to the problem of monopolies caused by the government is ... more government? Just take away the monopolies. :rolleyes: Plus, the vast majority of the private sector are not state granted monopolies.

But the central point is that governments cannot spend more than they take in forever. A reckoning was inevitable. Either drastic spending cuts or extreme tax increases.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

:laugh4: So not spending huge amounts of money you don't have, and don't plan to have except from decades of borrowing, is a 'fad'?It's about massive cuts during an economic downtime. The tentative recovery is put in danger.

The operative word here is 'timing'. One might well agree that the budget needs to be balanced. But: eventually. What, one might wonder, is the point of firing 490.000 government employees at a moment when the private sector is not at all capable of employing them?
If one desperately wants to shrink the public sector, then do so gradually, at a an opportune moment. Or else scenarios like 'Japan 1990's' might very well loom.

The fad itself is the 'unsustainable deficit scare' of a few months ago. This fad was the alarmist notion that at some point in the future an aging Western populations might cause deficit problems, which became cause for cries for immediate dismantling of the Western governments. One would suspect a mostly ideological driven agenda, what with the previous notion that deficits needed to be bloated beyond any precedence to save the private sector.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that these cuts in numbers are due to be over the next 4 years, not next week...

Reassuring the markets means we as a nation pay less for our debt, which saves the country millions at the least. If anyone can think of a way of making this vast sum that is required for such tasks as welfare payments then please do say. Hundreds of millions have been allocated to catch tax evaders but unless anyone has a way to get that money now it isn't going to help.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

ye can start with those Nuke subs and carriers then what a waste of money.


Not to mention the tanks, obsolete planes and other cold war cruft.

That argument is always brought up, and it remains just as stupid each time it is trotted out.

Defence is a tiny proportion of public expenditure whose budget has remained flat for the last twenty years during which time welfare and the NHS have more doubled, and now utterly dwarf defence as a percentage of total expenditure.

Defence of the Realm is the [first] duty of the nation state, and it is demonstrably the one with least fat to cut, if only because it has been subject to the least of labour's largesse.

[Furunculus]

“it is terribly sad........................ but: tough!”
No, my dear, it is not about debts, it is about ideology.

“the government should not be tithing more than 40% of the wealth of the nation for public spending, it is immoral, as it will retard the long-term growth that will preserve standards of living for our children.”
Immoral? What a Cr…?


yup, it is indeed ideology, at least on my part, and goes quite simply thus; "get the ^%@< off my money!" i reject the tacit assumption that any cut in taxation/spending is immoral, for the logical end point of that logic is to tax at 100% rate. and no, i'm not even in the 40% band, but will i stand idly by when you come for my neighbour, no, because next time you will be coming for me!

bad news chuckles; yes, as long as I and lots of others like me are of the opinion that a 50% top-rate on income tax is punative, and as long as we consider tithing more than ~40% of the nations wealth both immoral and retarded, you are going to have trouble pushing through labour style public spending and social entitlements.

tough.

[gaelic cowboy]

That argument is always brought up, and it remains just as stupid each time it is trotted out.

Defence is a tiny proportion of public expenditure whose budget has remained flat for the last twenty years during which time welfare and the NHS have more doubled, and now utterly dwarf defence as a percentage of total expenditure.

Defence of the Realm is the [first] duty of the nation state, and it is demonstrably the one with least fat to cut, if only because it has been subject to the least of labour's largesse.

Right maybe I was using a bit of hyperbole but the new carriers are a disgraceful waste of money when they dont even have a plane that can be used or even one able to use them.

The old joke about the Irish Naval Service was it was the only one that if you fell overboard you might get stung by nettles, well the RN is the only one you might land on an Admiral if you fell overboard.

[Louis VI the Fat]

UK defense needs more funds. It's expensive to scrape all those subs off of Scottish rocks.


More importantly, the TorLiban vandals are selling off the family jewels:


Many of England's best-loved forests (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/forests) and woodlands may be sold to large landowners, housing developers and international power companies in what could be the UK's greatest change of land ownership since the second world war.

Caroline Spelman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/caroline-spelman), the environment secretary, is expected to announce a new strategy later this week that will lay the foundations for more than 150,000 hectares of forest and other land owned by the state in England to be sold within three years.

Tonight, conservationists and opposition parties as well as landowners warned that the land sale would be a costly disaster unless stringent safeguards were put in place.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/24/forests-government-heritage-private-developers
Why not rather keep British forests public, and keep them British, that any Briton may enjoy their fruits?
You can only sell them once. The Tory vandals are at it again. To balance the books once, another cherished British institution is taken from ordinary Britons and squandered to private interest.

[gaelic cowboy]

TorLiban

:laugh4::laugh4:

Excellent Louis I must remember that one.

[naut]

It's brilliant watching the UK fail. =)

[Furunculus]

It's brilliant watching the UK fail. =)

at what?

--

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8087030/UK-economy-grows-twice-as-fast-as-predicted.html

[Tellos Athenaios]

Right maybe I was using a bit of hyperbole but the new carriers are a disgraceful waste of money when they dont even have a plane that can be used or even one able to use them.

The old joke about the Irish Naval Service was it was the only one that if you fell overboard you might get stung by nettles, well the RN is the only one you might land on an Admiral if you fell overboard.

Precisely: those pet projects of officers for a new project/job to do are mostly a waste of taxpayer money. And by all accounts the carriers are “not so bad” for UK standards and true enough the carriers might actually be useful for force projection or aid. But it's stuff like the frigates, the nimrods, the typhoons, the wildcats which makes no financial sense. Or indeed that small invasion force of tanks built around a mistaken idea about what the Soviets might've done if they ever got that itch.

If you simply want a “large” army/navy/airforce because it makes you go all warm and fuzzy gaze on. If you want defense of the realm then you might do better to avert your eye.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's about massive cuts during an economic downtime. The tentative recovery is put in danger.

The financial solvency of the nation is in danger for some countries if they don't do cuts.

Government spending at its best doesn't help the economy enough to justify the cost.


The fad itself is the 'unsustainable deficit scare' of a few months ago. This fad was the alarmist notion that at some point in the future an aging Western populations might cause deficit problems, which became cause for cries for immediate dismantling of the Western governments. One would suspect a mostly ideological driven agenda, what with the previous notion that deficits needed to be bloated beyond any precedence to save the private sector.

You never heard me arguing for the huge bailouts to the banks or car companies.

Another point; if cuts aren't made now, then when? Each passing day increases the deficit and the eventual pain. And even with the terrible finances of today, the strikers in France refuse to consider a reasonable retirement age. What would they do if the saw the government wasn't in great financial danger and wanted to cut their benefits?

Also, action must be taken now in order in order to forestall complete collapse in the future. Putting it off is not smart. It has just taken a worldwide recession to see that.

CR

[Furunculus]

Precisely: those pet projects of officers for a new project/job to do are mostly a waste of taxpayer money. And by all accounts the carriers are “not so bad” for UK standards and true enough the carriers might actually be useful for force projection or aid. But it's stuff like the frigates, the nimrods, the typhoons, the wildcats which makes no financial sense. Or indeed that small invasion force of tanks built around a mistaken idea about what the Soviets might've done if they ever got that itch.

If you simply want a “large” army/navy/airforce because it makes you go all warm and fuzzy gaze on. If you want defense of the realm then you might do better to avert your eye.
^ has no understanding of the concept of deterrence ^

[rory_20_uk]

Concerning cuts, Unions have two arguments:

When it's a boom: cuts now are not required - growth rather than cut (regardless of need, utility, efficiency). Why should workers suffer when the companies are doing so well?
When it's a bust: cuts now are not required - will hit workers when they are already down, need to spend one's way out of recession (debt rating, fiscal responsibility etc are meaningless terms).

Small ships are probably the best for the UK. Although a UK frigate / destroyer / cruiser isn't going to do anything against the big players it can be very useful against pirates / drug runners or any other smaller ships from other navies. An aircraft carrier can only be in one place and might dominate the surrounding waters, is still a very small area.

Nimrods are comparatively cheap and are exceptionally useful for anything but the smallest skirmish. I would agree on Tanks though.

We need a small Armed Forces probably based on the US's Marine Corps with the forces integrated together with the emphasis on the sea and amphibious landings and inland for a few miles. Deep land based campaigns is something that currently there is no point even pretending we can undertake, so best focus resources on doing one thing well.

~:smoking:

[Tellos Athenaios]

^ has no understanding of the concept of deterrence ^

Ah but I do. You miss the point that the way the UK spends its MOD budget has less to do with buying actual capability for a reasonable price (indeed first thing you do is ditch everything made in the UK and start shopping abroad because you avoid the made-in-UK markup), and has more to do with institutionalised spending traditions and/or career opportunities for officers.

Defence of the realm, or traditions: pick one.

[Furunculus]

Ah but I do. You miss the point that the way the UK spends its MOD budget has less to do with buying actual capability for a reasonable price (indeed first thing you do is ditch everything made in the UK and start shopping abroad because you avoid the made-in-UK markup), and has more to do with institutionalised spending traditions and/or career opportunities for officers.

Defence of the realm, or traditions: pick one.

the other side to that is that british companies result in british taxes which get fed back into the exchequer.

in addition to providing a huge export market that helps balance our trade deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

[Brenus]

“And even with the terrible finances of today, the strikers in France refuse to consider a reasonable retirement age.” Reasonable? The reason why people live longer is because the age of retirement. The body starts to deteriorate at around 63 (average). So, stopping at 60 is just on time to enjoy a little bit of life and slower the process.
Then, Sakozy wants the French to have the double fork: First increase the age for retirement, second to keep the number of years needed to get the full pension.
By the way, the age of retirement is not compulsory. It is a right, not a duty.
Why do you want the French to accept their freedom to be taken?

[Furunculus]

'reasonable' is defined by what the future generation are willing to pay to support the previous.

britain is sitting on £3 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities, how's france doing?

[Brenus]

“how's France doing?”
Better, as in France, the debt is in majority private.
But here you see the manipulation made by every Government.
Pensions are in deficit because unemployment (un-employed can’t pay) and by the fact that the Businesses got so many exemption and charge free niches.

The trap is in (for France) the shifting of the actually pensioners and the employment figures. And then, the same Government will claim that the Social Benefit figures are too high and have to be cut because it is not possible for the community to pay for the scroungers… Remind you something?
At the same time that the President Sarkozy is trying (succeeding) to destroy the National Pension Scheme, his brother (Monsieur, Frere du Roi) is creating a private Pension Fund.
So the problem is not the money, the problem is that the money is not going in the right pockets, theirs.

[Furunculus]

"But here you see the manipulation made by every Government."

We have traditionally had very low unemployment relative to many neighbours, and much of the black-hole comes from public sector pensions in addition to the state pension, perhaps not the same problem faced by france.....?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

“And even with the terrible finances of today, the strikers in France refuse to consider a reasonable retirement age.” Reasonable? The reason why people live longer is because the age of retirement. The body starts to deteriorate at around 63 (average). So, stopping at 60 is just on time to enjoy a little bit of life and slower the process.


What do you mean by "starts to deteriorate"? Doesn't that mostly have to do with how you take care of yourself during your life? i.e. my grandfather staid health and played golf every week, he enjoyed an active life till 95 (an example to make sure I'm being clear not an attempt at anecdotal proof).

[rory_20_uk]

And if you want to retire and have 20 to 30 years of retirement there are 3 broad options and not mutually exclusive:

1) Work and save like a bastard when you're young (large "nest egg" for you, more taxes for the state)
2) Have a very frugal retirement (less money per unit of time)
3) Accept a reduced range of healthcare options (reduces life expectancy and healthcare costs)

The French appear to want the 4th option:

4) We do as we want (short working day, plenty of holidays, long lunch and early retirement, good pension, good healthcare), and someone else gives us money to do it.

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

“What do you mean by "starts to deteriorate"? Doesn't that mostly have to do with how you take care of yourself during your life? i.e. my grandfather staid health and played golf every week, he enjoyed an active life till 95 (an example to make sure I'm being clear not an attempt at anecdotal proof).” I mean that you start to have problem with body, it is when you need longer time to recover from a cold and you need to be more careful…
At 26, I could (I did) party all night, drink (a lot) then go for a 15 km run. Nowadays, just watching the training of a soldier on TV makes me tired…
About how you take care of your body depends on your profession as well.

“We do as we want (short working day, plenty of holidays, long lunch and early retirement, good pension, good healthcare), and someone else gives us money to do it.” And being the best work efficient and highest productivity due to the reasons mentioned above…
And no body except the French pay for their pension. Or do you think that the English pay for the French? THAT would be funny….

[rory_20_uk]

Their efficiency and productivity is good pro rata, but not the total output. My work isn't going to agree to pay me the same for a 20 hour week even if I might be relatively more productive and efficient during those hours.

Of the pension that is currently budgeted for (as most is when current incumbents retire and is therefore off books - something not allowed in Private companies), the Bond Markets currently pay for their pension, helped along by the CAP.

~:smoking:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

“What do you mean by "starts to deteriorate"? Doesn't that mostly have to do with how you take care of yourself during your life? i.e. my grandfather staid health and played golf every week, he enjoyed an active life till 95 (an example to make sure I'm being clear not an attempt at anecdotal proof).” I mean that you start to have problem with body, it is when you need longer time to recover from a cold and you need to be more careful…
At 26, I could (I did) party all night, drink (a lot) then go for a 15 km run. Nowadays, just watching the training of a soldier on TV makes me tired…
About how you take care of your body depends on your profession as well.


How is it not a personal responsibility? If people are to unhealthy to enjoy themselves because they didn't eat right, drank to much, smoked too much, and didn't exercise than that is their fault. Why cater to them? They aren't children.

[Brenus]

“If people are to unhealthy to enjoy themselves because they didn't eat right, drank to much, smoked too much, and didn't exercise than that is their fault.”
Yeap, but if people became unhealthy because work conditions were so bad as that they had to be overloaded, or had to breath toxic fumes, or were exposed to extreme temperatures that is not.
When I was a student, I worked on roofs. Temperature are high, lot of dust and al depend on weather. The reason why I refused all jobs proposals is you can’t do it until 60 years old… Nice job, but very hard.
So, to impose a retirement in a job where most started at 17, 40 years, was retirement at 57. Now, thanks to stupid Sakozy, 3 years more.
If you want to speak about family example, none of the male from my family did enjoy retirement. They all died before or just after, “as a light without petrol” to repeat what the doctor said to my mother when her dad died. A life of hard work came to an end; he had no more energy for the pension.
And it is what they want.
The life expectancy increased thanks to early pension. Just let kill the workers so the problem of pension will be resolved. Clever…

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So you are just suggesting a lower retirement age for people with strenuous jobs, that sounds reasonable to me, but it's hard to figure out just how much deterioration is due to the job and not other factors, e.g. poor people smoking more.

Life expectancy for unskilled manual labor is 73 for men and 78 for women. I think you need more of an argument to show that 63 instead of 60 is too unjust to balance out the negative effects of the financial problems. Obviously if money wasn't an issue at all...

[rory_20_uk]

Simple systems are simple to enforce. The more granular the system the more overhead to sort out and the more mistakes / corruption.

1) Listing the different numbers of jobs and what categories they are in.
2) The length of time people are doing each section of jobs.
3) Different levels of stress in non-physical jobs as this too affects stress levels.
4) Different people have different tolerances to different things. Better factor that in too to make sure the system is as fair as possible.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“If people are to unhealthy to enjoy themselves because they didn't eat right, drank to much, smoked too much, and didn't exercise than that is their fault.”
Yeap, but if people became unhealthy because work conditions were so bad as that they had to be overloaded, or had to breath toxic fumes, or were exposed to extreme temperatures that is not.
When I was a student, I worked on roofs. Temperature are high, lot of dust and al depend on weather. The reason why I refused all jobs proposals is you can’t do it until 60 years old… Nice job, but very hard.
So, to impose a retirement in a job where most started at 17, 40 years, was retirement at 57. Now, thanks to stupid Sakozy, 3 years more.
If you want to speak about family example, none of the male from my family did enjoy retirement. They all died before or just after, “as a light without petrol” to repeat what the doctor said to my mother when her dad died. A life of hard work came to an end; he had no more energy for the pension.
And it is what they want.
The life expectancy increased thanks to early pension. Just let kill the workers so the problem of pension will be resolved. Clever…

You do know that the idea of a pension was for you to be able to live once you were no longer able to work, right? Not that you should enjoy a "long retirement".

If I retire at 80 and die at 90 that'll be good enough for me, my Grandfather has now been retired almost longer than he has been working, and he is bored.

[Brenus]

“Simple systems are simple to enforce. The more granular the system the more overhead to sort out and the more mistakes / corruption.

1) Listing the different numbers of jobs and what categories they are in.
2) The length of time people are doing each section of jobs.
3) Different levels of stress in non-physical jobs as this too affects stress levels.
4) Different people have different tolerances to different things. Better factor that in too to make sure the system is as fair as possible”
Which is exactly what the French are actually asking….

“Life expectancy for unskilled manual labor is 73 for men and 78 for women”
My point, thank.
So the French, I do apology on their behalf, thinking, you know, working to live and not living for work, perhaps to have the last 13 years of your life for just envoy the grand-children or gardening, is not too much.
But no.
Sarkozy is having an ideological war on the French. He is a Conservative and he is in favour of the Rich. So, rich have to be rich and envoy life, Poor have to be poor and be thrown after use.

“my Grandfather has now been retired almost longer than he has been working, and he is bored.” My Grandfather never had the opportunity, or my dad.

“You do know that the idea of a pension was for you to be able to live once you were no longer able to work, right?” Welcome in the 19th Century

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Welcome in the 19th Century

No, Welcome to the Post-War consensus, the increase in life expectancy has resulted in the pension becoming something it was never meant to be.

[Brenus]

Welcome to the Post-War consensus 1870 war

[Idaho]

Just came across this one from a couple of months ago:

Taxman lets Vodafone off £6bn (http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/mi_8002/is_2010_Sept_16/taxmans-cave-vodafone-pounds-sterling6bn/ai_n55244457/)

Of course the Mail runs it from the Government incompetance angle, rather than the innate capitalist corruption angle. Also I don't believe there was much mention from the Taxpayers Alliance for some reason.. I wonder why?

[rory_20_uk]

It's a tricky one, as far as I understand it...

Two companies overseas combined, so nothing took place in the UK. As far as I am aware, nothing illegal under current laws has been done (I believe I'm right that a similar scheme is done with very expensive houses - they are owned by a shell company owned abroad, and to get the house you "buy" the company).

Closing this down is going to be difficult as how does one define an entity that is abroad for tax dodging purposes compared to a foreign company? Hammering all foreign companies isn't going to be a clever idea.

Innate corruption? Oddly enough every system that humans have created is riddled with corruption. Holding one's nose and pointing to a Utopia which has never existed is a very sterile approach to adopt.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

It's a tricky one, as far as I understand it...

Two companies overseas combined, so nothing took place in the UK. As far as I am aware, nothing illegal under current laws has been done (I believe I'm right that a similar scheme is done with very expensive houses - they are owned by a shell company owned abroad, and to get the house you "buy" the company).

Closing this down is going to be difficult as how does one define an entity that is abroad for tax dodging purposes compared to a foreign company? Hammering all foreign companies isn't going to be a clever idea.

Innate corruption? Oddly enough every system that humans have created is riddled with corruption. Holding one's nose and pointing to a Utopia which has never existed is a very sterile approach to adopt.

~:smoking:

And yet spending the majority of media time and attention on 'benefit cheats' is fecund and pointful?

The question you have to ask yourself is whether you think the richest and most powerful are best able to fix society, or the poorest and weakest? I don't believe that we get a better society by endlessly beating up those with the least.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not defending either.

The fact there is an outcry in that housing benefits are topped at £400 a WEEK (the rent for my family home is £950 a MONTH) shows something is seriously wrong, as does c. £21 BILLION gets spent per year on this. Every year. And to date rising. So, back to the £400pw (roughly £20k a year)- which is close to the average wage by itself when one includes taxes... How are these with the least again? There are many workers with a hell of a lot less.

By all means, fight fire with fire and purchase lists of hidden overseas tax accounts and come down like a ton of bricks on the offenders.
Sort out the tax laws that allow fast practices such as occurred at Vodafone.
I'd say legalise drugs / prostitution as well: get money into the state wherever possible from evaders / avoiders and illegal practices!

Concerning the media attention, humans place far more value on potential loss than potential gain. So, they'll be more pissed on the viewed loss of taxes paid than the gains that might have been from taxes not paid. Interest / outrage sells papers.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

the rent on my 2.5 bedroom house is rising to £480/month as of April next year!

[Beskar]

the rent on my 2.5 bedroom house is rising to £480/month as of April next year!

That's the issue, as many people are living in Houses worth far more than what the people living in them earn, such as the center of London.

This is why there has been an outcry of "Social-economical Cleanesing" in Areas around the country as people will be forced to move out of these areas.

The new Eastenders will be filled with Upper-Middle Class yuppies to reflect the changing times instead of the trash that currently inhabit the show. :smoking:

[Idaho]

I'm not defending either.

The fact there is an outcry in that housing benefits are topped at £400 a WEEK (the rent for my family home is £950 a MONTH) shows something is seriously wrong, as does c. £21 BILLION gets spent per year on this. Every year. And to date rising. So, back to the £400pw (roughly £20k a year)- which is close to the average wage by itself when one includes taxes... How are these with the least again? There are many workers with a hell of a lot less.

By all means, fight fire with fire and purchase lists of hidden overseas tax accounts and come down like a ton of bricks on the offenders.
Sort out the tax laws that allow fast practices such as occurred at Vodafone.
I'd say legalise drugs / prostitution as well: get money into the state wherever possible from evaders / avoiders and illegal practices!

Concerning the media attention, humans place far more value on potential loss than potential gain. So, they'll be more pissed on the viewed loss of taxes paid than the gains that might have been from taxes not paid. Interest / outrage sells papers.

~:smoking:

The problem is that the extreme examples of benefit payment to the top 5% are used as a justification to attack the other 95% who just about scrape by.

It's one of the paradoxes of housing benefit that if you are made unemployed, the state will not pay your mortgage, but if you rent, will happily pay the mortgage of your landlord.

[rory_20_uk]

That's the issue, as many people are living in Houses worth far more than what the people living in them earn, such as the center of London.

This is why there has been an outcry of "Social-economical Cleanesing" in Areas around the country as people will be forced to move out of these areas.

The new Eastenders will be filled with Upper-Middle Class yuppies to reflect the changing times instead of the trash that currently inhabit the show. :smoking:

So... only the really poor or the really rich can live there? Not a problem that everyone else will not be able to afford it? Subsidising some with cheap / free housing merely pushes the rents higher (and taxes, of course).


The problem is that the extreme examples of benefit payment to the top 5% are used as a justification to attack the other 95% who just about scrape by.

It's one of the paradoxes of housing benefit that if you are made unemployed, the state will not pay your mortgage, but if you rent, will happily pay the mortgage of your landlord.

If it's not relevant to 95%, then 95% won't be affected.

I agree that the paradox with payment of mortgages is nonsensical, but I feel that this is because of the system that is still pretty prevalent that council houses are viewed as "for life" - sometimes going to one's children. So there's always the need for more as the others are not recycled. And again, not being for life is a massive problem as it forces people to move from where they've lived... Like everyone else.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

'Told you so', part XVII:


The chancellor, George Osborne (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/georgeosborne), came under fire today from MPs on the Treasury select committee, charged with "misleading the public" for claiming the UK was near bankruptcy in the weeks after he took office. He was accused of using inflammatory language to justify massive public spending cuts.

The committee chairman, Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, said Osborne's claim that Britain had been "on the brink of bankruptcy" was "a bit over the top". He also challenged the chancellor's claims that his emergency budget (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/budget) had been progressive, accusing him of "over-egging it a bit".


Tyrie's comments followed heated exchanges during which Osborne was tackled over his handling of plans to cut central and local government spending. The chancellor has repeatedly justified the cuts as a reasonable response to unprecedented debt levels and the threat from credit ratings agencies to downgrade the UK's blue-chip AAA rating.
Tyrie said Osborne's inflammatory language was counterproductive. "Maybe the tough measures on the deficit and also the effort to make the budget fair would have come across more clearly if they hadn't been obscured in debate of claim and counter-claim," he said.


"I think there is something there to look at when making these remarks, which do look to me more like the language of opposition than government. Tell it as it is."


The Tories are under siege from...Tories about lying about the deficit. The deficit is far less serious than the government made it out to be. Apparantly, not unlike a previous British government, facts have been 'sexied up' to mislead both Westminster and the public at large.

These draconian cuts serve no economic purpose, they serve an ideological one. Let's call it, to borrow a phrase from the Cons own textbook, 'social engineering'.

[Furunculus]

These draconian cuts serve no economic purpose, they serve an ideological one. Let's call it, to borrow a phrase from the Cons own textbook, 'social engineering'.

an ideology i support to the hilt; "stop spending so much of my £\/(<1^& money!"