The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What spending would you have cut in 2010 to avoid borrowing so much money?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
Not sure how a ship is much use against today’s threats, otherwise I agree. So long as it’s procured in the UK, this spending can have a positive effect. There would be no Silicon Valley without defence spending.
We are an island. Our prosperity depends on global trade and the security of sealanes, not to mention regional stability more generally.
Outsourcing that security to another nation (that may have different priorities to us) is one hell of a risk.
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
Not enough votes in that. So long as general people don't fear it is in a state of collapse, correctly or not, the money will go elsewhere.
The perception of legendarily poor defence procurement doesn't help. Probably the only thing with a comparable perception is inflated, usually poorly working, IT systems.
It’s for politicians to help shape public opinion as well as respond to it.
That is true enough. But I think parties only have so much energy they are willing to spend on trying to do so, and I certainly don't get the impression either side cares to do so with sustained increases on defence.
I think those on the select committee and those who are ex-forces, or journalists very close to the ex-forces, are doing a cracking job.
I’m yet to see the cabinet respond, however.
I shall clarify - I don't think the leaderships and prospective leaderships of either party care enough to try.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.
Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
There were far too many political issues in the UK bound up with the European Union for it to be ignored any longer.
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
Not enough votes in that. So long as general people don't fear it is in a state of collapse, correctly or not, the money will go elsewhere.
The perception of legendarily poor defence procurement doesn't help. Probably the only thing with a comparable perception is inflated, usually poorly working, IT systems.
It’s for politicians to help shape public opinion as well as respond to it.
That is true enough. But I think parties only have so much energy they are willing to spend on trying to do so, and I certainly don't get the impression either side cares to do so with sustained increases on defence.
I think those on the select committee and those who are ex-forces, or journalists very close to the ex-forces, are doing a cracking job.
I’m yet to see the cabinet respond, however.
I shall clarify - I don't think the leaderships and prospective leaderships of either party care enough to try.
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What spending would you have cut in 2010 to avoid borrowing so much money?
Osbornes salary probably a good start, leading to a more balanced economic approach (following an Obama like model) proven to raise more revenue.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.
Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.
Our family business operates a 5 year budget cycle, a 10 year strategic plan, 25 year objectives and a 100 year vision.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
And yet who can dispute that WTC have played an important part in our jobs miracle over the last 8 years? It is what has made work pay even for the low skilled with children.
Who can dispute the necessity of state aid for housing in our broken housing market? How many people are we willing to see homeless until the market re-equiliberates?
Sweeping reforms are not possible in either area without causing untold damage. The answer is a more gradual approach by increasing the minimum wage and amending HB so that it is a gentle downward pressure on average rents rather than a booster. These are complex and expensive problems that developed over decades. We cannot simply sweep them away.
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What spending would you have cut in 2010 to avoid borrowing so much money?
Reminds me a bit of Ed M's slightly confused sounding message of 'Grrr, Tory cuts' and 'the Tories haven't cut as much as they said they would, the failures'.
I know, it was meant to be about nature if the cuts or whatever, but it wasn't a great strategy.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.
Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
Harsh to blame Brexit
Our politicians are quite capable of neglecting serious problems regardless
I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
If only there were a continent wide organisation we could join to share the defence burden with.
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What practical steps do you think a Labour adminstration should have taken post GE2010 where we were spending £5 for every £4 received in taxes, and overspending by £120+ billion per year?
Let’s take it as read that your suggestion that we let doctors be doctors might not quite cut it.
TBF one of the issues in public services is that authority and autonomy have been stripped away from professionals.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
Harsh to blame Brexit
Our politicians are quite capable of neglecting serious problems regardless
The ideological crusade of Brexit has at the very least taken people’s eyes off serious problems at a key moment.
I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
If only there were a continent wide organisation we could join to share the defence burden with.
we end up picking up their defence burden since they dont spend any money on defence
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What practical steps do you think a Labour adminstration should have taken post GE2010 where we were spending £5 for every £4 received in taxes, and overspending by £120+ billion per year?
Let’s take it as read that your suggestion that we let doctors be doctors might not quite cut it.
TBF one of the issues in public services is that authority and autonomy have been stripped away from professionals.
“Let doctors be doctors” has some merit
That is part of the reason that I voted Tory in 2010, Cameron was sounding genuine over the issue.
It turned out to be bollocks though, so never again.
I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
If only there were a continent wide organisation we could join to share the defence burden with.
Dangerous argument, given no EU country takes defence at all seriously. Indeed, we still have the most effective military in Europe and the only one with significant long-range striking power. For the rest, they just hope the Yanks will do something if it all kicks off - as they have for 73 years.
I am reminded of Sheppard Frere writing in 1963 of the end of Roman Britain: 'The plight of a wealthy people dependent for their security on a great power whose strategic interests were, in the last analysis, centred elsewhere is not without interest today'
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What practical steps do you think a Labour adminstration should have taken post GE2010 where we were spending £5 for every £4 received in taxes, and overspending by £120+ billion per year?
Let’s take it as read that your suggestion that we let doctors be doctors might not quite cut it.
TBF one of the issues in public services is that authority and autonomy have been stripped away from professionals.
“Let doctors be doctors” has some merit
But provides no answers to reducing a deficit of over £120bn a year.
Live export is an abomination - these sheep are destined for the slaughterhouse anyway. There are arguments against Brexit, this really isn't one of them.
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What spending would you have cut in 2010 to avoid borrowing so much money?
Osbornes salary probably a good start, leading to a more balanced economic approach (following an Obama like model) proven to raise more revenue.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
Harsh to blame Brexit
Our politicians are quite capable of neglecting serious problems regardless
The ideological crusade of Brexit has at the very least taken people’s eyes off serious problems at a key moment.
the ideological crusade that was Brexit has been going on for years. It is the ideological crusade that is Remain that has taken up the time.
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What practical steps do you think a Labour adminstration should have taken post GE2010 where we were spending £5 for every £4 received in taxes, and overspending by £120+ billion per year?
Let’s take it as read that your suggestion that we let doctors be doctors might not quite cut it.
TBF one of the issues in public services is that authority and autonomy have been stripped away from professionals.
“Let doctors be doctors” has some merit
But provides no answers to reducing a deficit of over £120bn a year.
To put it in perspective if the entire NHS had been closed down with not another penny being spent we would still have been in deficit.
I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
If only there were a continent wide organisation we could join to share the defence burden with.
Actually, it’s pan-continental, and it’s called NATO, and most of its members aren’t pulling their weight.
But that doesn’t mean our own interests, and defence needs, aren’t distinct as well: they are.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.
Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.
Our family business operates a 5 year budget cycle, a 10 year strategic plan, 25 year objectives and a 100 year vision.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.
Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.
Our family business operates a 5 year budget cycle, a 10 year strategic plan, 25 year objectives and a 100 year vision.
But we are... quirky
What’s your vision for 100 years time?
Corbyn will still be protesting he was there, but he wasn't involved?
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What spending would you have cut in 2010 to avoid borrowing so much money?
Osbornes salary probably a good start, leading to a more balanced economic approach (following an Obama like model) proven to raise more revenue.
So prove it.
That other economies without the benefit of Osborne are growing faster than ours? Or that a less ideological, myopic approach could have worked in the UK? The former is easy, the latter hard to prove in retrospect since I have no delorean.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.
Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.
Our family business operates a 5 year budget cycle, a 10 year strategic plan, 25 year objectives and a 100 year vision.
I am not convinced by @AlastairMeeks on pensions nationalisation, which would have a number of difficulties, including that with pension funds gone there would be few buyers of government gilts.
The problem of taxation is that you can only extract significant amounts of money from those who have significant amounts in the first place. We therefore need to look at where the money is.
Pensions could have higher rate relief stopped.
ISA pots limited, annual amounts reduced, or the proceeds taxed.
Wealth taxes, particularly on property, including drastic reduction in limits and removing the exemption for primary residence.
I see there’s headline news about young people drinking less alcohol again.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
And yet who can dispute that WTC have played an important part in our jobs miracle over the last 8 years? It is what has made work pay even for the low skilled with children.
Who can dispute the necessity of state aid for housing in our broken housing market? How many people are we willing to see homeless until the market re-equiliberates?
Sweeping reforms are not possible in either area without causing untold damage. The answer is a more gradual approach by increasing the minimum wage and amending HB so that it is a gentle downward pressure on average rents rather than a booster. These are complex and expensive problems that developed over decades. We cannot simply sweep them away.
I think you misunderstand
Making work pay is a good thing. Too much of the benefit has been snaffled by companies through depressing wages
Social housing is necessary but the current way of setting housing benefit rents is incompetent and pushes up prices. For example I could see a model where by you using the housing benefit budget to pledge a risk free return to pension funds to build social housing.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
Harsh to blame Brexit
Our politicians are quite capable of neglecting serious problems regardless
The ideological crusade of Brexit has at the very least taken people’s eyes off serious problems at a key moment.
the ideological crusade that was Brexit has been going on for years. It is the ideological crusade that is Remain that has taken up the time.
Before and when we joined the EEC (yes, I know), the idea had very considerable public support, both form politicians and from ‘real people’.
It’s only really since the 2008 financial crisis and austerity that public opinion has moved against it, and primarily because of perceptions about immigration.
I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
If only there were a continent wide organisation we could join to share the defence burden with.
Good idea. Let’s be more ambitious - how about partnering with our friends in North America as well. We could call it the Pan Atlantic Treaty Organisation or something
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
That has to be one of the most insulting things done for a long while. And, unless I am much mistaken, due to a recent ruling by the SCOTUS.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
Harsh to blame Brexit
Our politicians are quite capable of neglecting serious problems regardless
The ideological crusade of Brexit has at the very least taken people’s eyes off serious problems at a key moment.
Peoples eyes weren’t on them. Brown left such a mess the Tories are still clearing up
The Tories have borrowed £800bn and burned it. National debt up 80% at the same time as public services were cut to crisis levels. And then they have the nerve to question what Labour would do...
The economy as it's currentlt structured isn't sustainable. When you strip away the headline figures fpr NHS spending increases you see real world massive front line cuts. At the same time you find a hugely complex and expensive marketisation project syphoning cash into contract management. And the same with education where total spending hoes up yet front line cash collapses at almost the same rate as the media report scandals in academy chains.
We need a return to efficiency as opposed to the Tories scalping public money for their mates via marketisation. I honestly don't care much about ownership - Blair's "whatever works" approach was right. So we could save a literal fortune in spending by scrapping CCGs and Academies, give schools and medical practitioners the practical level of autonomy they need without making Doctors stop being doctors and instead have them running a contracts management company.
And here's a radical idea. Lets have the government borrow money, invest it into things that pay a return on investment such as infrastructire, repay the loan and reinvest the profits. It used to be called capitalism until the Tories scrapped it and replaced it with bankism. Borrowing is not subsidy when its invested. Borrowing under the Tories to burn on badly funded (but lucrative to the right people) public services? Thats really stupid...
What practical steps do you think a Labour adminstration should have taken post GE2010 where we were spending £5 for every £4 received in taxes, and overspending by £120+ billion per year?
Let’s take it as read that your suggestion that we let doctors be doctors might not quite cut it.
TBF one of the issues in public services is that authority and autonomy have been stripped away from professionals.
“Let doctors be doctors” has some merit
That is part of the reason that I voted Tory in 2010, Cameron was sounding genuine over the issue.
It turned out to be bollocks though, so never again.
The plan was to get Aster 1NT for the Type 45s to give an ABM capability but transmanche defence cooperation is distinctly cooling at the moment.
I noted at the weekend that the Army is now trying to recruit ex soldiers discharged for drug use. Recruitment seems to be in the same state as the NHS. Even when the money is there, it is impossible to get the recruits of the correct calibre.
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes
Narrowing tax base - tech companies need to understand they have to pay their way.*. Similarly I remain unconvinced that lifting the personal allowance as high as they have was the right thing
It may be politically impossible but someone needs to upend the government budget, figure out what needs to be done and how to deliver it effectively and at an affordable price. This may involve taxes going up. The current strategy of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are notoriously tight fisted and have no understanding of social responsibility. One company, who shall remain nameless but let’s call them Giggle for simplicity, sat in front of Cameron and said “they couldn’t afford” to donate £250,000 to a programme to protect children from online grooming by paediphiles.
It does need a completely new approach. That probably requires at least a degree of consensus because meaningful change can’t happen in one Parliamentary cycle and positive results will be slow to appear. But with the centre of gravity in both main parties moving to the respective extremes and our voting system,God knows where that consensus comes from.
Changing corporate structures and the way in which shares are held could well achieve plenty. Businesses that look at the long-term - rather than focusing on delivering dividends that get top management their big paydays - would be a huge and beneficial development. Again, though, it’s hard to see it happening.
Our family business operates a 5 year budget cycle, a 10 year strategic plan, 25 year objectives and a 100 year vision.
But we are... quirky
What’s your vision for 100 years time?
Focus, independence, family ownership and a conservative balance sheet strategy. We view ourselves as a utility not a casino
Live export is an abomination - these sheep are destined for the slaughterhouse anyway. There are arguments against Brexit, this really isn't one of them.
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
That has to be one of the most insulting things done for a long while. And, unless I am much mistaken, due to a recent ruling by the SCOTUS.
A split judgement and all. At least two have the guts to stand against such patent gerrymandering.
But yes, that has the look of a Republican gain about it. It was fearfully close last time and if the Dems lose even a few thousand votes...
I say many things about our judges, mostly deserved, but at least they're not nakedly political like that.
Dr. Foxy, given the way soldiers who served in Northern Ireland have been treated, who can be surprised the army's finding it hard to recruit? They're probably worried that they'll follow orders and, in a few decades, end up on trial anyway.
A bit like lack of support for police firearms units leading making people wary of joining it.
And yet who can dispute that WTC have played an important part in our jobs miracle over the last 8 years? It is what has made work pay even for the low skilled with children.
Who can dispute the necessity of state aid for housing in our broken housing market? How many people are we willing to see homeless until the market re-equiliberates?
Sweeping reforms are not possible in either area without causing untold damage. The answer is a more gradual approach by increasing the minimum wage and amending HB so that it is a gentle downward pressure on average rents rather than a booster. These are complex and expensive problems that developed over decades. We cannot simply sweep them away.
I think you misunderstand
Making work pay is a good thing. Too much of the benefit has been snaffled by companies through depressing wages
Social housing is necessary but the current way of setting housing benefit rents is incompetent and pushes up prices. For example I could see a model where by you using the housing benefit budget to pledge a risk free return to pension funds to build social housing.
But the government has cut WTC at the top from the absurd levels of entitlement they inherited (people on more than twice the average wage on benefits!) and increased the minimum wage to put more of the cost on employers.
The amount of HB available is now fixed by less than the local average rent creating downward pressure. And the HB is already being spent on existing housing stock, where does the money come from to guarantee a return for new stock and why is that cheaper than allowing Councils to borrow at the current low rates and build themselves?
The thing is, though: something has to give. I agree with Alastair, but what is the realistic solution? Public services are a vital part of most people’s lives. From bin collections through schools to the NHSline decisions will be made for them that harm them more.
The fundamental issue is poorly designed government spending. Often well intended but they are just crap programmes with unintended consequences
A few examples:
Working tax credits - companies need to pay a realistic wage and not expect the government to subsidise them
Housing benefits have inflated rents and house prices. The government should use its negotiating power much more aggressively
Needless complexity such as winter fuel allowances and free bus passes. If OAPs need more money then increase the state pension. Don’t eff around with complex little schemes designed to buy votes of just pouring more money into a leaky bucket doesn’t have much appeal
* I was told the other night that tech companies are by paediphiles.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
Harsh to blame Brexit
Our politicians are quite capable of neglecting serious problems regardless
The ideological crusade of Brexit has at the very least taken people’s eyes off serious problems at a key moment.
the ideological crusade that was Brexit has been going on for years. It is the ideological crusade that is Remain that has taken up the time.
Before and when we joined the EEC (yes, I know), the idea had very considerable public support, both form politicians and from ‘real people’.
It’s only really since the 2008 financial crisis and austerity that public opinion has moved against it, and primarily because of perceptions about immigration.
Not just that, the GFC tripped the switch on people who were fed up with politics not delivering the goods. The Blair-Cameron approach of an unbalanced economy ran out of road.
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
That has to be one of the most insulting things done for a long while. And, unless I am much mistaken, due to a recent ruling by the SCOTUS.
You are mistaken. It was a decision by the appeals court which the Suireme Court refused to revisit
Asking voters to provide a residential address is not unreasonable. If native Americans don’t have “traditional residential addresses” they can come up with a way to create that.
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
Not sure how a ship is much use against today’s threats, otherwise I agree. So long as it’s procured in the UK, this spending can have a positive effect. There would be no Silicon Valley without defence spending.
That least sentence is an odd claim. 'Silicon Valley' was the main birthplace of the Integrated Circuit, and whilst there was some direct military input, it was only relatively minor.
If 'defence spending' led to the Silicon Valley phenomena, then why didn't it develop in (say) Britain or Germany , both of whom had engineers who proposed ICs beforehand and had massive military spending budgets?
IMV SV developed due to three main factors; an entrepreneurship culture, an allied venture capital funding stream, and a forward-looking Stanford University. Military spending is a relatively minor factor IMO.
As another example, look at here in the UK, where Silicon Fen has been created, aided by the actions of, and proximity to, Cambridge University. Where we really fail is in entrepreneurship culture and VC funding, though.
'Silicon Valley' could only ever have developed in the US, and would have happened even with little or no military spending. It was the place, and the time, and the non-military demand fro ICs (mainly in radio) was there.
Sort of thinking that should have been done 30 years ago.
It was nascent in Maastricht with its different pillars and opt outs but the federalists wouldn't have it and insisted that we were all on the same journey to unity, even if we were at different speeds. And they made sure that was the reality come Lisbon too. It is unfortunate because other versions that would have been much more attractive to Brits were possible and a majority of us did not share that vision.
Mr. Jonathan, that's a nice, and meaningless, slogan.
I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. That's a view based on the current trend and the future, not the past.
Globalisation is happening whether we’re in the EU or not. You are going to be disappointed. The amount of nostalgia in Brexiteer rhetoric is noticeable. It’s all about getting back to an age that never was and never will be.
I see there’s headline news about young people drinking less alcohol again.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
Yes, I would see that as a major part of it, and not just young people! PB is like a virtual pub to me.
The other factor in the drop of youth alcohol consumption is the percentage who are BME*, often from societies where drinking is not part of the culture. Even well integrated BME youngsters are often teetotal.
For example many twenty something Hindus and Muslims come on departmental nights out, such as Christmas party, but do not drink. Not only is this a direct effect, but by peer pressure the ethnic Brits drink less too.
Twenty years ago our departmental Christmas do was a baccanalian delight that required days to recover from, and provided gossip for months. It is still fun, but a very different, and rather more staid affair. I have even learned to dance sober!
*I recall that about a quarter of under 18's in the UK are BME, roughly twice the proportion of the general population, owing to the age structure and larger families.
Mr. Jonathan, that's a nice, and meaningless, slogan.
I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. That's a view based on the current trend and the future, not the past.
Globalisation is happening whether we’re in the EU or not. You are going to be disappointed. The amount of nostalgia in Brexiteer rhetoric is noticeable. It’s all about getting back to an age that never was and never will be.
The issue inst globalisation per se, the issue is what we are doing about it to make our citizens lfe easier.
I am not convinced by @AlastairMeeks on pensions nationalisation, which would have a number of difficulties, including that with pension funds gone there would be few buyers of government gilts.
The problem of taxation is that you can only extract significant amounts of money from those who have significant amounts in the first place. We therefore need to look at where the money is.
Pensions could have higher rate relief stopped.
ISA pots limited, annual amounts reduced, or the proceeds taxed.
Wealth taxes, particularly on property, including drastic reduction in limits and removing the exemption for primary residence.
Transaction taxes for internet companies.
etc etc.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
Dr. Foxy, given the way soldiers who served in Northern Ireland have been treated, who can be surprised the army's finding it hard to recruit? They're probably worried that they'll follow orders and, in a few decades, end up on trial anyway.
A bit like lack of support for police firearms units leading making people wary of joining it.
Yes, much the same feeling in the NHS. For example the Bawa-Garba / Adcock case.
Mr. Jonathan, I don't see why globalisation requires us to be part of a United States of Europe.
Mr. HYUFD, hmm. Possible. But if he thought he might lose, voluntarily leaving is better than being kicked out of the White House. He's also elderly, so health could be a factor.
Mr. Jonathan, that's a nice, and meaningless, slogan.
I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. That's a view based on the current trend and the future, not the past.
Globalisation is happening whether we’re in the EU or not. You are going to be disappointed. The amount of nostalgia in Brexiteer rhetoric is noticeable. It’s all about getting back to an age that never was and never will be.
The issue inst globalisation per se, the issue is what we are doing about it to make our citizens lfe easier.
I think it is even more fundamental. In a globalised and generally open world what is the best size of unit to provide services to the local population and how is it to be funded when money and profits move so easily as Alastair points out in his thread header? These are the challenges and pretending that they go away if we hide in a protectionist bloc like the EU is naive at best.
All of this is very interesting geopolitically. It would be very easy for Turkey to have ignored or downplayed this. The fact they have not is not due to any moral stance by Erdogan but part of a larger game.
Mr. Jonathan, I don't see why globalisation requires us to be part of a United States of Europe.
Mr. HYUFD, hmm. Possible. But if he thought he might lose, voluntarily leaving is better than being kicked out of the White House. He's also elderly, so health could be a factor.
Trump will never consider he will lose and no way he will want to go down on history as wimping out after only 1 term
Sort of thinking that should have been done 30 years ago.
It was nascent in Maastricht with its different pillars and opt outs but the federalists wouldn't have it and insisted that we were all on the same journey to unity, even if we were at different speeds. And they made sure that was the reality come Lisbon too. It is unfortunate because other versions that would have been much more attractive to Brits were possible and a majority of us did not share that vision.
Indeed. I suspect the Brussels apologists, one of which has already popped up downthread, will be quick to say that’s what it’s all been about all along.
Dr. Foxy, given the way soldiers who served in Northern Ireland have been treated, who can be surprised the army's finding it hard to recruit? They're probably worried that they'll follow orders and, in a few decades, end up on trial anyway.
A bit like lack of support for police firearms units leading making people wary of joining it.
Yes, much the same feeling in the NHS. For example the Bawa-Garba / Adcock case.
That was a truly shocking outcome even although the right decision was reached in the end I have no doubt that the implications for the NHS were and should be profound.
I see there’s headline news about young people drinking less alcohol again.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
Yes, I would see that as a major part of it, and not just young people! PB is like a virtual pub to me.
The other factor in the drop of youth alcohol consumption is the percentage who are BME*, often from societies where drinking is not part of the culture. Even well integrated BME youngsters are often teetotal.
For example many twenty something Hindus and Muslims come on departmental nights out, such as Christmas party, but do not drink. Not only is this a direct effect, but by peer pressure the ethnic Brits drink less too.
Twenty years ago our departmental Christmas do was a baccanalian delight that required days to recover from, and provided gossip for months. It is still fun, but a very different, and rather more staid affair. I have even learned to dance sober!
*I recall that about a quarter of under 18's in the UK are BME, roughly twice the proportion of the general population, owing to the age structure and larger families.
Northamptonshire has not gone bust. It’s no longer allowed to engage in new spend. It’s not hard to trace a history of poor management at the council. Many county councils are as rotten as those long held labour mets.
Speaking as a county councillor... my own local authority is not far away from the same.
Mr. Jonathan, that's a nice, and meaningless, slogan.
I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. That's a view based on the current trend and the future, not the past.
Globalisation is happening whether we’re in the EU or not. You are going to be disappointed. The amount of nostalgia in Brexiteer rhetoric is noticeable. It’s all about getting back to an age that never was and never will be.
Though really the period of European Imperialism in 18th and 19th Centuries was perhaps the first great globalisation. New goods and products like sugar, cotton and tea, then cheap imports of wheat and wool completely changed Britain's agriculture and domestic life. Our export industries demolished existing manufacturing in the sub continent and far east. Mass movements of people changed the culture and ethnicity of the Americas and Australasia, and to a lesser extent Africa and Asia.
The difference with modern globalisation is that the shoe is on the other foot, we are colony rather than coloniser. Hence nationalism and Brexit. Not that these will stop the process, and indeed may well accelerate it. Divide and conquer is a time honoured imperial strategy.
It says she opposes hard Brexit and Chequers, no surprise there.
That is completely irrelevant as to whether she will vote for May's plan to keep the whole UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border which is the only vote that will be happening in November to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and is identical in effect to Labour's policy anyway.
The terms of any trade deal will be negotiated in the transition period
Very much on topic. this was precisely Osbourne's clever wheeze with Royal Mail's pension fund, prior to privatisation. The previous fund, accumulated over decades, is now disappeared into government coffers and the liability to pay the historic pensions of postmen and women (and of all the other postal workers and managers) falls to this and future governments to pay out of current spending.
The government is currently trying to centralise local government pension investments, previously managed by each local council separately, into a number of pooled funds, and it doesn't take a genius to see how that story might end....
Some predictable response from PB Tories to the conundrum of how their government spend record amounts on the NHS yet simultaneously front line services are dangerously spread thin. More cash tipped in the top, less cash at the bottom. You honestly claiming that the vast cost of running all these myriad contracts and markets and managers isn't swallowing the cash?
Again to my basic point. In 8 years you've simultaneously added Eight Hundred Billion Pounds to the National Debt and cut front line health care, social care, education, defence, local government etc etc etc. More and more money spent with less and less to show for it. Where is all the money going...?
Mr. Jonathan, I don't see why globalisation requires us to be part of a United States of Europe.
Mr. HYUFD, hmm. Possible. But if he thought he might lose, voluntarily leaving is better than being kicked out of the White House. He's also elderly, so health could be a factor.
If the United States of Europe happens, it’s impact on us will be largely the same whether we are in it, or not, It’s a case of trading off the benefit of being able to shape it a bit from within with being able to slightly diverge from it from the outside. Either way an independent Britain, in control of events is a myth.
And yet who can dispute that WTC have played an important part in our jobs miracle over the last 8 years? It is what has made work pay even for the low skilled with children.
Who can dispute the necessity of state aid for housing in our broken housing market? How many people are we willing to see homeless until the market re-equiliberates?
Sweeping reforms are not possible in either area without causing untold damage. The answer is a more gradual approach by increasing the minimum wage and amending HB so that it is a gentle downward pressure on average rents rather than a booster. These are complex and expensive problems that developed over decades. We cannot simply sweep them away.
I think you misunderstand
Making work pay is a good thing. Too much of the benefit has been snaffled by companies through depressing wages
Social housing is necessary but the current way of setting housing benefit rents is incompetent and pushes up prices. For example I could see a model where by you using the housing benefit budget to pledge a risk free return to pension funds to build social housing.
But the government has cut WTC at the top from the absurd levels of entitlement they inherited (people on more than twice the average wage on benefits!) and increased the minimum wage to put more of the cost on employers.
The amount of HB available is now fixed by less than the local average rent creating downward pressure. And the HB is already being spent on existing housing stock, where does the money come from to guarantee a return for new stock and why is that cheaper than allowing Councils to borrow at the current low rates and build themselves?
On both they are making the right moves
However onHB I think you can get even better rents. Moreover the issue is that a lot of the money goes on inferior housing stock that has been bought at excessively high prices. Those landlords have nowhere to go.
On pension fund money this is complementary to local authorities. Council owned housing has a role (although HAs getting a bad rep).
However councils core function isn’t managing large building projects and the housing stock. If you were to guarantee - say - a 30 year 4% return (which would probably end up at 8% equity return) that would attract new equity into housing investment, guarantee capacity for social tenants and help with pension fund returns.
There will be an initial bridging amount but as the new housing stock comes on stream you switch tenants into the newer properties.
I am not convinced by @AlastairMeeks on pensions nationalisation, which would have a number of difficulties, including that with pension funds gone there would be few buyers of government gilts.
The problem of taxation is that you can only extract significant amounts of money from those who have significant amounts in the first place. We therefore need to look at where the money is.
Pensions could have higher rate relief stopped.
ISA pots limited, annual amounts reduced, or the proceeds taxed.
Wealth taxes, particularly on property, including drastic reduction in limits and removing the exemption for primary residence.
Transaction taxes for internet companies.
etc etc.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
It does make a certain sense if you don’t believe in private property....
Sort of thinking that should have been done 30 years ago.
It was nascent in Maastricht with its different pillars and opt outs but the federalists wouldn't have it and insisted that we were all on the same journey to unity, even if we were at different speeds. And they made sure that was the reality come Lisbon too. It is unfortunate because other versions that would have been much more attractive to Brits were possible and a majority of us did not share that vision.
Indeed. I suspect the Brussels apologists, one of which has already popped up downthread, will be quick to say that’s what it’s all been about all along.
Northamptonshire has not gone bust. It’s no longer allowed to engage in new spend. It’s not hard to trace a history of poor management at the council. Many county councils are as rotten as those long held labour mets.
Speaking as a county councillor... my own local authority is not far away from the same.
One thing that needs to go is the two tier district/council system, which is why I'm very much in favour of the blue's proposal to change Nottinghamshire to a unitary authority. I pointed out a fairly simple and obvious saving would be that you'd only need one website for everything, which was mocked here as a tiny saving. Wither 'look after the pennies, and the pounds take care of themselves'.
Some predictable response from PB Tories to the conundrum of how their government spend record amounts on the NHS yet simultaneously front line services are dangerously spread thin. More cash tipped in the top, less cash at the bottom. You honestly claiming that the vast cost of running all these myriad contracts and markets and managers isn't swallowing the cash?
Again to my basic point. In 8 years you've simultaneously added Eight Hundred Billion Pounds to the National Debt and cut front line health care, social care, education, defence, local government etc etc etc. More and more money spent with less and less to show for it. Where is all the money going...?
It’s more to do with increase demand across the board. And though there are record funds, the demands and expectations are substantially greater across the board. There’s only really being austerity in local government and the police.
I am not convinced by @AlastairMeeks on pensions nationalisation, which would have a number of difficulties, including that with pension funds gone there would be few buyers of government gilts.
The problem of taxation is that you can only extract significant amounts of money from those who have significant amounts in the first place. We therefore need to look at where the money is.
Pensions could have higher rate relief stopped.
ISA pots limited, annual amounts reduced, or the proceeds taxed.
Wealth taxes, particularly on property, including drastic reduction in limits and removing the exemption for primary residence.
Transaction taxes for internet companies.
etc etc.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
The only thing that matters is capital controls (which I think he said a couple of years ago that he would do day 1)
Mr. Jonathan, I don't see why globalisation requires us to be part of a United States of Europe.
Mr. HYUFD, hmm. Possible. But if he thought he might lose, voluntarily leaving is better than being kicked out of the White House. He's also elderly, so health could be a factor.
If the United States of Europe happens, it’s impact on us will be largely the same whether we are in it, or not, It’s a case of trading off the benefit of being able to shape it a bit from within with being able to slightly diverge from it from the outside. Either way an independent Britain, in control of events is a myth.
Lord Owen had an interview where he discussed this yesterday.
He said ultimately there will be a Federal Union between France and Germany along with Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.
Italy will be hung out to dry like Greece and Spain will also not be included even if it wants to be
I noted at the weekend that the Army is now trying to recruit ex soldiers discharged for drug use. Recruitment seems to be in the same state as the NHS. Even when the money is there, it is impossible to get the recruits of the correct calibre.
The massive missed opportunity for the UK forces was not to allow enlistment, subject to language and background checks, by EU nationals. It was ludicrous that a Fijian was eligible and a Dane wasn't.
Mr. Jonathan, when the EU starts having its own taxation policies (we keep hearing the Tobin Tax every few years, and plans to harmonise tax rates) the difference will be more than minor.
Here's a radical idea. Lets have companies pay wages their employees can afford to live on. Those employees then buy goods and services from companies who pay actual taxes creating jobs. Then we have more people working being paid enough to have spare cash to buy goods and services. Companies with order books can then borrow to invest in expansion, creating more jobs.
I think it used to be called capitalism. Investment - and borrowing for investment - wasn't a dirty word. So as a starter for 10 lets borrow to invest in infrastructure - our roads, railways, airports and broadband need a serious upgrade and the private sector isn't doing it. So we borrow. Invest in schemes. Get a short term return by putting people to work and having their employer pay taxes. Then a long term return from economic growth. And we fix the NHS by stripping away all of the profits being made by Tory donor companies leeching off the system - we don't need doctors running a commissioning business, we need them being doctors.
Northamptonshire has not gone bust. It’s no longer allowed to engage in new spend. It’s not hard to trace a history of poor management at the council. Many county councils are as rotten as those long held labour mets.
Speaking as a county councillor... my own local authority is not far away from the same.
One thing that needs to go is the two tier district/council system, which is why I'm very much in favour of the blue's proposal to change Nottinghamshire to a unitary authority. I pointed out a fairly simple and obvious saving would be that you'd only need one website for everything, which was mocked here as a tiny saving. Wither 'look after the pennies, and the pounds take care of themselves'.
Two tier authorities are a nightmare, the problem in my area is that the districts (six of them) are generally very good at the things they are supposed to do. Bin collection, litter picking, planning, parks maintaiance, taxi licensing. Not so good at the more nebulous stuff which is expected but isn’t necessarily their statutory role. Such as economic development, events and tourism.
The county council seems to be pretty much mediocre at everything. Though it now has a good excuse for poor highways, schools and elderly care. But the reality is these services were pretty poor a decade ago. They are now still poor with less money. When services got handed over from the distinct to the county council (technical highways matters) we ended up with a lowest common denominator situation.
The risk in our area of replacing all the districts and the county council with one large unitary is the new body inherits the culture and practices of the county council, not the district councils.
Mr. Jonathan, when the EU starts having its own taxation policies (we keep hearing the Tobin Tax every few years, and plans to harmonise tax rates) the difference will be more than minor.
We will have to align our economy to compete and sell our goods and services, so the difference will be minor. Unless of course, we take some extreme left wing or right wing Venezuela approach, where we can go it alone.
Very much on topic. this was precisely Osbourne's clever wheeze with Royal Mail's pension fund, prior to privatisation. The previous fund, accumulated over decades, is now disappeared into government coffers and the liability to pay the historic pensions of postmen and women (and of all the other postal workers and managers) falls to this and future governments to pay out of current spending.
The government is currently trying to centralise local government pension investments, previously managed by each local council separately, into a number of pooled funds, and it doesn't take a genius to see how that story might end....
There are merits to aggregating local pension funds into half a dozen large investors. Organisations like Teachers for example (the Ontario pension plan for schools) are able to generate much more attractive net returns because of their scale and reach.
Edit: very different to central government snaffling the money!
Some predictable response from PB Tories to the conundrum of how their government spend record amounts on the NHS yet simultaneously front line services are dangerously spread thin. More cash tipped in the top, less cash at the bottom. You honestly claiming that the vast cost of running all these myriad contracts and markets and managers isn't swallowing the cash?
Again to my basic point. In 8 years you've simultaneously added Eight Hundred Billion Pounds to the National Debt and cut front line health care, social care, education, defence, local government etc etc etc. More and more money spent with less and less to show for it. Where is all the money going...?
It’s more to do with increase demand across the board. And though there are record funds, the demands and expectations are substantially greater across the board. There’s only really being austerity in local government and the police.
So no cuts in education? No cuts in front line NHS provision? No cuts in social care? No cuts in social security? No disabled people "cured" and having their car and wheelchair taken away only to posthumously win their appeal having died of the condition they were "cured" of?
Mr. Jonathan, selling to any nation requires the sold products to meet that nation's regulatory requirements. The idea that exporting means the nation to which we export should get to determine our domestic law and, in the future, set taxation rates or even collect taxes, is bizarre and unacceptable.
Comments
Outsourcing that security to another nation (that may have different priorities to us) is one hell of a risk.
It had to be addressed.
But we are... quirky
Who can dispute the necessity of state aid for housing in our broken housing market? How many people are we willing to see homeless until the market re-equiliberates?
Sweeping reforms are not possible in either area without causing untold damage. The answer is a more gradual approach by increasing the minimum wage and amending HB so that it is a gentle downward pressure on average rents rather than a booster. These are complex and expensive problems that developed over decades. We cannot simply sweep them away.
I know, it was meant to be about nature if the cuts or whatever, but it wasn't a great strategy.
Our politicians are quite capable of neglecting serious problems regardless
“Let doctors be doctors” has some merit
It turned out to be bollocks though, so never again.
I am reminded of Sheppard Frere writing in 1963 of the end of Roman Britain: 'The plight of a wealthy people dependent for their security on a great power whose strategic interests were, in the last analysis, centred elsewhere is not without interest today'
But that doesn’t mean our own interests, and defence needs, aren’t distinct as well: they are.
https://www.independent.ie/business/budget/budget-leads-to-new-speculation-of-december-election-date-37403281.html
The problem of taxation is that you can only extract significant amounts of money from those who have significant amounts in the first place. We therefore need to look at where the money is.
Pensions could have higher rate relief stopped.
ISA pots limited, annual amounts reduced, or the proceeds taxed.
Wealth taxes, particularly on property, including drastic reduction in limits and removing the exemption for primary residence.
Transaction taxes for internet companies.
etc etc.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
Making work pay is a good thing. Too much of the benefit has been snaffled by companies through depressing wages
Social housing is necessary but the current way of setting housing benefit rents is incompetent and pushes up prices. For example I could see a model where by you using the housing benefit budget to pledge a risk free return to pension funds to build social housing.
It’s only really since the 2008 financial crisis and austerity that public opinion has moved against it, and primarily because of perceptions about immigration.
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1049691445282648065?s=19
The idea a country governing itself is some sort of odd or remarkable ideology is a strange use of the English language.
But yes, that has the look of a Republican gain about it. It was fearfully close last time and if the Dems lose even a few thousand votes...
I say many things about our judges, mostly deserved, but at least they're not nakedly political like that.
A bit like lack of support for police firearms units leading making people wary of joining it.
The amount of HB available is now fixed by less than the local average rent creating downward pressure. And the HB is already being spent on existing housing stock, where does the money come from to guarantee a return for new stock and why is that cheaper than allowing Councils to borrow at the current low rates and build themselves?
https://twitter.com/eha_news/status/1049894617649487872
Asking voters to provide a residential address is not unreasonable. If native Americans don’t have “traditional residential addresses” they can come up with a way to create that.
I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe. That's a view based on the current trend and the future, not the past.
If 'defence spending' led to the Silicon Valley phenomena, then why didn't it develop in (say) Britain or Germany , both of whom had engineers who proposed ICs beforehand and had massive military spending budgets?
IMV SV developed due to three main factors; an entrepreneurship culture, an allied venture capital funding stream, and a forward-looking Stanford University. Military spending is a relatively minor factor IMO.
As another example, look at here in the UK, where Silicon Fen has been created, aided by the actions of, and proximity to, Cambridge University. Where we really fail is in entrepreneurship culture and VC funding, though.
'Silicon Valley' could only ever have developed in the US, and would have happened even with little or no military spending. It was the place, and the time, and the non-military demand fro ICs (mainly in radio) was there.
(All IMO, obviously...)
The other factor in the drop of youth alcohol consumption is the percentage who are BME*, often from societies where drinking is not part of the culture. Even well integrated BME youngsters are often teetotal.
For example many twenty something Hindus and Muslims come on departmental nights out, such as Christmas party, but do not drink. Not only is this a direct effect, but by peer pressure the ethnic Brits drink less too.
Twenty years ago our departmental Christmas do was a baccanalian delight that required days to recover from, and provided gossip for months. It is still fun, but a very different, and rather more staid affair. I have even learned to dance sober!
*I recall that about a quarter of under 18's in the UK are BME, roughly twice the proportion of the general population, owing to the age structure and larger families.
Mr. HYUFD, hmm. Possible. But if he thought he might lose, voluntarily leaving is better than being kicked out of the White House. He's also elderly, so health could be a factor.
But, we all know that’s nonsense.
Speaking as a county councillor... my own local authority is not far away from the same.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10617974
The difference with modern globalisation is that the shoe is on the other foot, we are colony rather than coloniser. Hence nationalism and Brexit. Not that these will stop the process, and indeed may well accelerate it. Divide and conquer is a time honoured imperial strategy.
That is completely irrelevant as to whether she will vote for May's plan to keep the whole UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border which is the only vote that will be happening in November to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and is identical in effect to Labour's policy anyway.
The terms of any trade deal will be negotiated in the transition period
The government is currently trying to centralise local government pension investments, previously managed by each local council separately, into a number of pooled funds, and it doesn't take a genius to see how that story might end....
Again to my basic point. In 8 years you've simultaneously added Eight Hundred Billion Pounds to the National Debt and cut front line health care, social care, education, defence, local government etc etc etc. More and more money spent with less and less to show for it. Where is all the money going...?
However onHB I think you can get even better rents. Moreover the issue is that a lot of the money goes on inferior housing stock that has been bought at excessively high prices. Those landlords have nowhere to go.
On pension fund money this is complementary to local authorities. Council owned housing has a role (although HAs getting a bad rep).
However councils core function isn’t managing large building projects and the housing stock. If you were to guarantee - say - a 30 year 4% return (which would probably end up at 8% equity return) that would attract new equity into housing investment, guarantee capacity for social tenants and help with pension fund returns.
There will be an initial bridging amount but as the new housing stock comes on stream you switch tenants into the newer properties.
Wither 'look after the pennies, and the pounds take care of themselves'.
Everything else can be figured out later
He said ultimately there will be a Federal Union between France and Germany along with Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.
Italy will be hung out to dry like Greece and Spain will also not be included even if it wants to be
https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2018/10/interview-with-david-owen-theresa-may-has-been-very-badly-advised-about-brexit-and-should-now-embrace-the-eea-in-order-to-end-up-with-canada-plus-plus-plus.html
I think it used to be called capitalism. Investment - and borrowing for investment - wasn't a dirty word. So as a starter for 10 lets borrow to invest in infrastructure - our roads, railways, airports and broadband need a serious upgrade and the private sector isn't doing it. So we borrow. Invest in schemes. Get a short term return by putting people to work and having their employer pay taxes. Then a long term return from economic growth. And we fix the NHS by stripping away all of the profits being made by Tory donor companies leeching off the system - we don't need doctors running a commissioning business, we need them being doctors.
The county council seems to be pretty much mediocre at everything. Though it now has a good excuse for poor highways, schools and elderly care. But the reality is these services were pretty poor a decade ago. They are now still poor with less money. When services got handed over from the distinct to the county council (technical highways matters) we ended up with a lowest common denominator situation.
The risk in our area of replacing all the districts and the county council with one large unitary is the new body inherits the culture and practices of the county council, not the district councils.
It would be completely constitutional for Westminster to do that
But without the *consent* of the local population it would fly in the face of national self determination.
For the last 100+ years that’s been at the core of liberal philosophy and it’s sad that so many so-called liberals have forgotten it
Edit: very different to central government snaffling the money!